Geranium Gynoecium and Stamens - new versions

Images taken in a controlled environment or with a posed subject. All subject types.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

AndrewC
Posts: 1436
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:05 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Geranium Gynoecium and Stamens - new versions

Post by AndrewC »

Image

Reversed El-Nikkor 75/4 @ f8 @ 200mm extension
90x102um stack, ZS

This is one of the reasons I love macro images - I see details that would normally just pass me by.

Composition wise, I think I'll try this again with more showing at the bottom.

rgds, Andrew
Last edited by AndrewC on Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Planapo
Posts: 1581
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:33 am
Location: Germany, in the United States of Europe

Post by Planapo »

Harmonious colours and arrangement. I like it very much as it is!

But you're right, a bit more bottom, where the stylus and the filaments originate could even improve it.
And perhaps you can take away these dust fibers with fine forceps. There's one crossing that anthere at five o'clock which is particularly noticeable as it has the darker anthere as background.

--Betty

AndrewC
Posts: 1436
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:05 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Post by AndrewC »

I don't normally go in for "pixel thuggery" (and, when I do, something perverse in me wants to leave a couple of blemishes) but here's a new version of the original image and a couple of alternative shots of different blossoms. On balance I prefer the edited original, probably because of the open anthers and in my eye the slightly different crop rebalances it.


Edited original:

Image

Waving anther at RHS spoils this one ?

Image

Would be much nicer with an open anther at the front ? I could clone one in but that exceeds my personal tolerance level. I don't mind "gardening" an image (removing dust spots, extraneous dirt, etc), I get a bit uncomfortable about removing "distracting elements" but can live with it if I'm using Photoshop instead of tweezers, but really don't like creating an alternative reality because I couldn't / didn't photograph it in the first place.

Image

comments welcome,

Andrew

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

I immediately liked the first one. It has a dreamy, greetings card quality. However, after the first impression, the yellowish base of the pistil is a distraction. This also applies to the edited original. Perhaps some colour cloning?

I prefer the other two shots, especially the one with the slightly more-saturated colours, showing more detail in the white structures. Having said this, the composition with the pinks and purples, and little white, has its own character.

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

Aynia
Posts: 724
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 7:42 am
Location: Europe somewhere
Contact:

Post by Aynia »

I really like all of these. :D

I also had a peep at your website and love your bird photos! Your galleries are pretty impressive.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23564
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

I prefer the edited original and the last one.

The "gardening" cleanup of dust in the original is a definite improvement. I actually can't see any difference in the crop (as indicated by layer-and-flash in Photoshop), though I notice you changed the size of the signature text.

The middle one is not my favorite. Somehow it strikes me as a bit cramped and untidy. But it's puzzling, because I'm not sure what's causing the impression of untidiness. The stamen filaments and anthers look tangled to me, but when I carefully work through what is where, it turns out to be illusion. :? The cramping is easier to explain. My eyes flow up the pistil and pop out the top just in time to run into the edge of the image. In the other compositions, there's enough spare space that my eyes have time to slow down and just sort of naturally fall back into the core of the image. There may also be some interaction with the stacking, in that the petals just off the end of the pistil are still sharp and crisp. It may be that in the other images, having the petals blurred behind the pistil gives my eyes a subtle cue that they've gone too far and should go back.

Between the edited original and the third image, I can't choose. They're different, but I like both of them. As Harold mentioned, the first one has a nice dream-like quality to it. The third one is more clinical, with all of reproductive parts in sharp focus, but still some blurred petals to add depth, and both the blurring and the composition keeps my eyes bouncing around inside the detailed area. It's one of those pictures where there's just a lot to see. Very nice! :D

--Rik

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

Although I didn't feel strongly enough about it to comment earlier, I was not entirely comfortable with the arrangement of stamens either, but my problem was with the last image.

These matters can be very subjective, sometimes at the personal/individual level.

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

AndrewC
Posts: 1436
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:05 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Post by AndrewC »

Thanks for the comments - it's always interesting to hear how others see things in their own way :)

Andrew

AndrewC
Posts: 1436
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:05 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Post by AndrewC »

rjlittlefield wrote:...I actually can't see any difference in the crop (as indicated by layer-and-flash in Photoshop), though I notice you changed the size of the signature text.

...

--Rik
That's really interesting, and going back and reviewing the two I agree. Interesting because I crop "free hand" and I know I restarted from the original full size tiff file which means my mind/hand repeated themselves almost exactly and somehow thought there was an improvement. I doubt I could do it if I tried !

Andrew

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic