Studio Rose

[wmchauncey]

I wish...I wish that I knew how to make them more artsy looking, whatever that even means...suggestions anyone?

[Rob C]

Water droplets; selectively blur.

Rob C

[Diego Pigozzo]

suggestions anyone?

For my tastes I would go with a flat lightning, both front and back, so to make it less tridimensional and more abstract.
What I mean is that IMHO the beauty of a rose is much more in the convolution of the petals than that in the tridimensional shape of the flower itself.

[Rob C]

Best flowers that I ever saw were those huge paper ones that were so popular in the 60s. Especially the sunflower versions.
Never did understand the fascination so many famous snappers have had for lillies etc. Why? What did they or the lillies bring to the party? Even Mapplethorpe did 'em... attempts at spiritual cleansing?

Rob C

[drmike]

JSON per chiamata manuale al servizio BOS inserisciLogCartaDiCredito:
For my tastes I would go with a flat lightning, both front and back, so to make it less tridimensional and more abstract.
What I mean is that IMHO the beauty of a rose is much more in the convolution of the petals than that in the tridimensional shape of the flower itself.

I think I agree. This looks very clinical to me and you want to ease away from that. The stalk/stem doesn't help as it's quite 'present'. I guess you could blur in post processing but I suspect with softer lighting and shallower DOF you may get closer to the effect you want.

I was very impressed by a club member's still life and asked how she got the softness but yet clarity - she said it was lit by the living room windows and she adjusted the curtains until the lighting was good then exposed - a full minute apparently.

[wmchauncey]

Clinical is a good description, FWIW...I stack and merge my flowers shooting tethered. 
Multicolored LED lighting was used...resulting image is 44".

Something's gotta change.

[drmike]

That sounds really complicated and I'd expect it to work against the effect you seem to seek. But, it has to be said at this stage a fair question is - but what do I know! I have never used any of those techniques.

[wmchauncey]

Maybe a B&W is somewhat better...used this technique...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3otqqw9p--k

[Rob C]

The black/white one has had another life: it reminds me of a Frank Horvat shot of a nun from above.

Rob C

[FrameMaker]

To the OP: you've managed to wring all the life out of that poor flower. Maybe start more simply and use natural light, a good exposure and not too much processing.   At the risk of the pot calling the kettle black here is another rose. Whatever its faults this one has life.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Maybe a B&W is somewhat better...used this technique...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3otqqw9p--k

I love b&w flower shots, and this is a beauty.

Jeremy

[John R]

I don't much like bw flowers, but this one has character and life.

JR

[TomFrerichs]

I do like the black & white shot as well...frankly much more than the color shot that began this chain.

This has nothing to do with the quality of the work, just that I'm old.  In the upper left hand quadrant of the image there's a fine white line that is vertical and starts from the edge of the rose.  I'm guessing its probably the edge of a leaf, but I keep wanting to clean the negative to get rid of that hair.

[wmchauncey]

That fine line Tom, is poor background prep...my bad.