Poll

Does it pop? In the 3D sense.

Yes
No

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Rose  (Read 815 times)

Fine_Art

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1172
Rose
« on: February 05, 2013, 10:03:23 PM »



As listed in the Poll question, I am looking for feedback on any 3d quality to the rendering. The image is flat to take contrast/saturation out of the equation.

Feel free to comment.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2013, 08:32:35 PM by Fine_Art »
Logged

kikashi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5375
Re: Rose
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2013, 03:41:56 AM »

Feel free to comment.

Pretty flower, interesting composition but dark, subdued and flat.

Jeremy
Logged

Fine_Art

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Rose
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2013, 04:59:51 AM »

Its flat on purpose so that contrast will not be seen as the reason for 'pop'. I would not leave it this way as a final for print. As a rule I avoid final version on the web.
Logged

framah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1302
Re: Rose
« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2013, 01:13:43 PM »

Absolutely nothing special nor interesting about this photo. Typical tourist shot.

Too much background, seems somewhat out of focus, actually looks like your point of focus was not on the front edge where the drop is but further back which does not help the image.  Try getting a nice macro lens and try it again..alot closer.

Seriously... try shooting ONLY the rose. Fill the viewfinder with sweeps of petals and color. As it is now, you're not done.

If you are just starting out with your new camera, then ok, it's a pretty rose.
Logged
"It took a  lifetime of suffering and personal sacrifice to develop my keen aesthetic sense."

Dan Berg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1705
    • http://bergscanvasgallery.com http://bergscustomfurniture.com
Re: Rose
« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2013, 01:33:31 PM »

Its flat on purpose so that contrast will not be seen as the reason for 'pop'. I would not leave it this way as a final for print. As a rule I avoid final version on the web.


"As a rule I avoid final version on the web"
Why
You want productive feed back then don't hold back,make it your best.
Unless you want help shooting or processing?

Fine_Art

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Rose
« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2013, 01:42:23 PM »


"As a rule I avoid final version on the web"
Why
You want productive feed back then don't hold back,make it your best.
Unless you want help shooting or processing?

I am after "What gives some images a sense of depth?" with this as presented.
Logged

Dan Berg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1705
    • http://bergscanvasgallery.com http://bergscustomfurniture.com
Re: Rose
« Reply #6 on: February 06, 2013, 02:11:56 PM »

Google Diana Eftaiha,s article on"How to create a sense of depth to your photos".
She covers it all. Linear,dimensioning and aerial perspective as well as tonal and color.
Good read.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2013, 02:14:59 PM by Dan Berg »
Logged

kikashi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5375
Re: Rose
« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2013, 02:31:43 PM »

Its flat on purpose so that contrast will not be seen as the reason for 'pop'. I would not leave it this way as a final for print. As a rule I avoid final version on the web.

OK, then. It doesn't "pop" because it is flat and lacks contrast.

I really don't understand what you're getting at.

Jeremy
Logged

davidh202

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 657
Re: Rose
« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2013, 03:50:45 PM »

I really don't understand what you're getting at.  
Jeremy

From the looks of his answering posts, I don't think he gets it either  ::)

Framah had the right answer, but was just a little harsh IMHO
Dan has the right answer if he really wants to learn  ;-)
David
« Last Edit: February 06, 2013, 04:05:36 PM by davidh202 »
Logged

Fine_Art

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Rose
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2013, 04:40:05 PM »

From the looks of his answering posts, I don't think he gets it either  ::)

Framah had the right answer, but was just a little harsh IMHO
Dan has the right answer if he really wants to learn  ;-)
David

Harsh goes with the territory, it's not a big deal.

I was expecting some opinions on how the lens renders. Similar to Erik's Zeiss vs Sony lens look thread.
Logged

framah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1302
Re: Rose
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2013, 04:43:23 PM »

I am after "What gives some images a sense of depth?" with this as presented.

You didn't ask that when you originally posted the image.
All you said was: Feel free to comment.

As we aren't mind readers, how were we supposed to know that is what you wanted unless you told us?


Yeah, I'm in a harshy kind of mood today. When I see an image like this and the poster tells me to feel free to comment.. then I REALLY feel free.  I assume they really want to know.  
Some of the best lessons I learned came from someone telling me that it was crap.

On the plus side,

 I DID offer some ideas how to create a better rose image so it wasn't ALL harsh, eh?

« Last Edit: February 06, 2013, 04:45:48 PM by framah »
Logged
"It took a  lifetime of suffering and personal sacrifice to develop my keen aesthetic sense."

bill t.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2979
    • http://www.unit16.net
Re: Rose
« Reply #11 on: February 06, 2013, 04:57:35 PM »

It does have some sense of depth.  Other than that, the relatively hard-edged shadows are at odds with the imposed dark tonality, although that does create a definite unusual quality.
Logged

Fine_Art

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Rose
« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2013, 05:48:50 PM »

You didn't ask that when you originally posted the image.
All you said was: Feel free to comment.

As we aren't mind readers, how were we supposed to know that is what you wanted unless you told us?


Yeah, I'm in a harshy kind of mood today. When I see an image like this and the poster tells me to feel free to comment.. then I REALLY feel free.  I assume they really want to know.  
Some of the best lessons I learned came from someone telling me that it was crap.

On the plus side,

 I DID offer some ideas how to create a better rose image so it wasn't ALL harsh, eh?



I set the thread as a poll with a question. Granted it might have been hard to spot that. Or it may have been unexpected without saying it in the description.
Logged

Jaffy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 59
Re: Rose
« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2013, 06:25:55 PM »

Hi,
I voted "no" as I think the in-focus leaves on the lower left stop the rose standing out. I don't know if a bit more contrast and a bit of blur on the leaves would make it "pop".
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up