Okay, serious critique time!
This is an idea I've been working for a category entitled "Portrait of a flower". (1) Is this even appealing, (2) Does it suit the category title, and (3) What can I do to improve it?
Thanks!
This is a discussion on Portrait of a flower? within the Critiques forums, part of the Photography & Fine art photography category; Okay, serious critique time! This is an idea I've been working for a category entitled "Portrait of a flower". (1) ...
Okay, serious critique time!
This is an idea I've been working for a category entitled "Portrait of a flower". (1) Is this even appealing, (2) Does it suit the category title, and (3) What can I do to improve it?
Thanks!
1 and 2 are yes for me.
I like the shot, and I think it could benefit from additional pp. I'd like to see a bit more contrast (maybe 10-15%)and a tad more sharpening on the top half of the shot, Actually the bottom part as well(5-10%);on the petals though, not the center of the flower. Hope that helps - marko
- Please connect with me further
Photo tours of Montreal - Private photography courses
- Join the new Photography.ca Facebook page
- Follow me on Twitter http://twitter.com/markokulik
- Follow me on Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/111159185852360398018/posts
- Check out the photography podcast
"You have to milk the cow quite a lot, and get plenty of milk to get a little cheese." Henri Cartier-Bresson from The Decisive Moment.
Definitely appealing. Not sure about 2, but why not the category seems flexible enough. I also agree that a contrast boost will help, and that you don't want to sharpen the centre.
Me on Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/mtb_antz
Thanks guys; appreciate and agree with the input. On reflection though, I think perhaps this will be better executed with a slightly different flower; perhaps a pansy or similar with a less 'busy' centre.
I think it is a nice idea to use low contrast flowers for a project
Bookmarks