Warning - Flower Shots

Why do I feel like flower pictures are the photography equivalent of fast food? Cheap and Easy? I guess we all go there now and again - heck even MB posted some a while back and there have been some very nice flower pictures posted lately too. :D Here's my visit to the drive through... Tell me if anything works or if these are just too stereotypical.

(I'm so embarrassed :blush2: )

PC

#1
http://gallery.photographyreview.com...1414a_x800.jpg

#2
http://gallery.photographyreview.com...1412a_x800.jpg

#3
http://gallery.photographyreview.com...1400a_x800.jpg

#4
http://gallery.photographyreview.com...1403a_x800.jpg

PS - I promise to not post more flowers for a long time... mostly.

They certainly aren't stereotypical! I love the framing in all of them, and the little droplets of water, especially in the fourth picture, gives it that bit of uniqueness; without it, it would have been far less interesting. I can't really complain about anything. :D

Well the first one looks PSed into the shot and there are some glaring water drops at the bottom you might should clone. Of number three and four I prefer four. But there is another glare that could be a problem on a large print. Fix that and I give it two thumbs up and a standing ovation. Number two is great as well. With a little PPIng I think you will be fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PrevailingConditions

Tell me if anything works or if these are just too stereotypical.

(I'm so embarrassed :blush2: )

---

Since you asked...yes, they work but they're still stereotypical :D

i like number 2..nice DOF, unusual look and not too much "love me I'm a flower"..great job getting the clarity in this forum


..you might make flower of the day!:D

Nice focus and d.o.f.
I like one but as Greg said it looks photoshopped in.
I think 3 is the best but you might try darkening the highlights a tad and see if it brings out more detail in the bright area.
#2 is quite good. Just wish the background behind the bud were darker.
#4 is also quite good.
They're all very nice and because of your good backgrounds, I don't think they are all that stereo typical.

Kathryn - Thank you for your kind words.

Greg - I swear, the first was not PhotoShopped together. I saw the two flowers and found a position where the blue/purple ones were behind the yellow tulip. On 4, I'm not sure I understand the glare that you refer to. Can you be more specific?

AgingEyes - Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

Rod - Thanks. I'm glad I can add something to the forum, but please don't give me the flower of the day. I don't think I could live with that. :p

Frog - Thanks for the good suggestions. I'll have to try those to see how they turn out.

Thanks again for all the great comments and feedback. It's always good to get the feedback from the forum.

PC

The glare on number 4 is lower right about the 5 o'clock position of the flower.

I think #2 makes for the most interesting of the bunch and the most "nontraditional" flower pic of the bunch. As for shot 4, I wonder if the glare at one o'clock on the flower could be lessened.

Thanks Greg and ptax - I see what you're referring to on the glare. I'll try to tone it down and see how it looks.

PC

Not bad, PC. I like your introduction to the set. . . I too feel the same about flower shots, somewhat, but I think it's something that perhaps we all need to have in our collection.
I think the bg are a bit bright in all, but not to the point hwere it kills them. They are all fine. The second I find the most interesting because of it'smore interesting textures and character.