This Is Not A Flower
This Is Not A Flower
Photography \ Still life | 09/30/05 @666 |
emarts |
critiques (40) |
views (2059)
Do not copy, modify, distribute or sell the whole or parts of the image above without permission of the creator. More.
Description
Experiment with exposure. I used bracketing to get 3 different exposures and used Tone Mapping to come up with this "blend." Also, some Photoshopping to darken the background a bit.My goal is to control every image I make, beyond the camera. I know, it's another basic flower image, but still I hope you like this. I'm sure it will not get many views. But if you do stop to look at this, please tell me what you think. Also, please take a look at my other works. Thanks
Look closely and you'll see that this is not a flower.
I guess in a way, this is inspired by Rene Magritte.
Vote statisticsRecent: 0 votes, 0 pointsTotal: 37 votes, 312 points |
Cast your voteYou have to be logged in to voteVoting? Read the faq |
OptionsNone |
Comments (40)
Comment
To write a comment you need to be logged in
If you're not a registered member, click here to sign up.Reviews (0) beta
Write a review
To write a review you need to be logged in
If you're not a registered member, click here to sign up.Search the site
Item in the wrong category? Report it!
Copyright © 2000-2008 All rights reserved
Read the Terms of use and Privacy Statement.
This site is a property of Brothers in art For more information and support, contact .
Copyright © 2000-2008 All rights reserved
This site is a property of Brothers in art For more information and support, contact .



09/30/05 @669
I can see a fingerprint in one of the petals...am I wrong?...or it looks like a fingerprint......The colors are wonderful...Great work Samson!....top marks!......Now I will be afraid to post my next picture that is also a flower.
Carlos
09/30/05 @672
09/30/05 @672
Carlos
09/30/05 @714
09/30/05 @724
09/30/05 @729
I shot the image with bracketing turned on (1.5 step difference) with a wide aperture (3.5) for short DOF. I was careful not to make it too wide though because I wanted as much of the subject in focus. I find that many flower images on this site have such short DOF that only a part of the flower is in focus. And usually, the photographer gets the wrong portion in focus. That's not what I wanted. I wanted to be sure that this was not a hit-or-miss snapshot. I wanted everything about this photo to be intentional. So I took a lot of test photos until I found the DOF that I liked. Then took my bracketed shots.
Then I took the image into a program called Photomatix and made an HDR image out of it. This can also be done in Photoshop CS2 but I find Photomatix to be better at it. Then using the Tone Mapping feature, I made the adjustments so that I would get the highest and most pleasing exposure. You could also use Exposure Blending, but it flattens the image quite a bit. You'll have to take it into Photoshop and adjust the curves and increase the saturation to fix it.
When I took it into Photoshop, I noticed some grain that didn't look good. So I used the blur tool to soften it a bit. Then I created a mask for the background and on a seperate layer, I filled the mask with a dark red and set it to multiply and transparency of about 40%. I duplicated the layer and made it black and set it also to multiply and transparency of about 20% or so.
Then I just created the frame and added the text.
Oh, the Magritte reference is from his work called "This Is Not A Pipe."
09/30/05 @739
Carlos
09/30/05 @743
No crits at all!
8/8
09/30/05 @753
Super!!!
09/30/05 @809
09/30/05 @858
09/30/05 @917
09/30/05 @933
I can understand your choice for that high (okay, not really high, but for a flower pic it is high) f-number, but I have to argue that you could, as much time as you took yourself for the shot, you could have used manual focus and therefore at least gone down to 2.8 if not lower - I just prefer the background more blurred, for me it's even if you darkened it too distracting. Also - and that, as well, is just my opinion, you could have had it all in just one shot. Just shot a RAW (you can change the lighting conditions there a big deal without losing much quality) and blend the background using a layer mask.
Okay, and one more crit: in the highlights, it's just too easy to dedect the rose's true nature so I'd try to avoid that a bit more.
Now, some really positive aspects:
The framing is great. It's a perfect choice here, as well as title and placing of title.
You've shown some real patience with this. I could never
Overall, you've done a great improvement over the past few months - waiting for your next
09/30/05 @947
But nice
10/01/05 @973
Also, I never intended to hide the true nature of the rose. The full sized image shows the texture of the silk very well. Hence the title.
10/01/05 @983
That dilemma is why most of my flower pics are taken from the side, not from top
>Also, I never intended to hide the true nature of the rose. The full sized image shows the texture of the silk very well. Hence the title.
I didn't mean to hide it, just to make it less open, to give more reason to look at the photo more precisely.
10/01/05 @132
frayed rose petals.
I like the way you used the lights to make it glow.
+10
10/01/05 @286
10/01/05 @607
10/01/05 @703
10/03/05 @348
10/03/05 @709
Still, I wish others would take their flower pics to this level. I feel the technical side of this has been critiqued to death, but in terms of layout/comp I think it's just fine. This probably one of the most unique (in a good way) framing jobs I've seen at this site.
10/03/05 @760
10/04/05 @077
10/04/05 @082
It's a good blend, But I think It would be more engaging had you kept the bottom left of the flower as lit up as the rest. and perhaps run the sharpen tool just around the flower's edges to pull it out of the BG a little more.
10/04/05 @382
Excellent work!
Michelle
10/05/05 @149
10/05/05 @552
10/05/05 @709
10/05/05 @732
10/05/05 @904
10/06/05 @292
looks like all the hard work has payed off.
-Tom
10/06/05 @647
10/09/05 @724
i'm gonna use it as a my desktop! if i may ofcours
10/09/05 @877
10/10/05 @093
10/10/05 @811
+10
Bea
10/13/05 @427
11/03/05 @173
04/27/08 @392