Geranium Gynoecium and Stamens - new versions
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Geranium Gynoecium and Stamens - new versions
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
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
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
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:
Waving anther at RHS spoils this one ?
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.
comments welcome,
Andrew
Edited original:
Waving anther at RHS spoils this one ?
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.
comments welcome,
Andrew
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
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
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.
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23564
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
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!
--Rik
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!
--Rik
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
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
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.
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 !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
Andrew