Blossoms amid the daisies

[John R]

Cherry blossoms amid the dandelions, not daisies as I previously wrote in error. Can't seem to change the title. Anyway, the first image ia an orton effect. And I just added a second image from the trip, no effect. The weather was becoming unsettled and the sun was manageable, appearing like a moon.

JMR

[wolfnowl]

Interesting, but those aren't daisies.  You've got a whole crop of Taraxacum officiniale there - dandelion.  Not a bad thing, though.  The young leaves can be eaten cooked or raw, they have high amounts of several vitamins, the dried and roasted roots can make a coffee substitute, there's dandelion wine, and where would little kids make flower crowns without dandelion flower stalks?

Mike.

[John R]

Interesting, but those aren't daisies.  You've got a whole crop of Taraxacum officiniale there - dandelion.  Not a bad thing, though.  The young leaves can be eaten cooked or raw, they have high amounts of several vitamins, the dried and roasted roots can make a coffee substitute, there's dandelion wine, and where would little kids make flower crowns without dandelion flower stalks?

Mike.

Thanks for the comments. You are quite right, I made an error. Was thinking dandelions but wrote daisies. Shame on me!

JMR

[dalethorn]

Assuming some of these are in focus, I don't see details, which makes me wonder if the digital camera is having a problem with that when there's a solid or near-solid color to the flowers. That has been a problem for me in most lighting.

[John R]

Assuming some of these are in focus, I don't see details, which makes me wonder if the digital camera is having a problem with that when there's a solid or near-solid color to the flowers. That has been a problem for me in most lighting.

They are in focus, but softened because of the Orton treatment. It is meant to appear impressionistic and ethereal, not literal. The second image is straight. Thanks for the comments.

JMR

[RSL]

They are in focus, but softened because of the Orton treatment. It is meant to appear impressionistic and ethereal, not literal. The second image is straight. Thanks for the comments.

JMR

John, Impressionism is something you do with a paintbrush. Attempts to do impressionism with a camera don't look ethereal; they look manipulated. I'd bet the original, before the "impressionism" was a nice snapshot of a field of dandelions. Nothing wrong with that.

[dalethorn]

I wouldn't dream of asking anyone to put a "before and after" set on critique, but some people have done it of course. When I've done it, I usually got clobbered, so there you are.

[John R]

John, Impressionism is something you do with a paintbrush. Attempts to do impressionism with a camera don't look ethereal; they look manipulated. I'd bet the original, before the "impressionism" was a nice snapshot of a field of dandelions. Nothing wrong with that.

I guess I would beg to differ. William Neil was just presented on this site. You can do this kind of photography (techniques really) in camera or in post processing, or a combination of the two. But it is as legitimate as any other kind of photography. The same can be accomplished in camera with multiple exposures. And sometimes I do this and sometimes I use both methods. We did this all the time when shooting slide film. PP is just another tool. I already gave one photo site reference to other people, but there are many more photographers that employ this technique. Of course, if you create an image that does not quite work, then one can say you were not successful. The orignal photo, what does that matter?

JMR