Flowers

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #41 on:** 6 Sep 2007, 04:59 pm »

Nice Nathan!!

nathanm · « **Reply #42 on:** 6 Sep 2007, 07:14 pm »

Thanks! Although now that I look at it again on the Cinema Display I see there's some aliasing going on there on dem petals. Doh! Goes to show that just like audio if your monitors aren't as good as they could be you tend to overcompensate in some area. I work on my stuff at home on a CRT and I tend to oversharpen. Everything looks sharp as hell on a Cinema Display so when I look at it again I see more coarse artifacts. Hmph. The lavender flower looks okay, though.

Although flowers are a pretty boring subject I think the appeal is mainly one of magnification. Take a ho-hum little flower and blow it up huge and it becomes more visually stimulating. These were some quick and dirty snaps from my mom's flower bed. Very windy, had to toss about 95% of the shots. There will be NO 4x5 $hot$ of flowers for me!

On second thought, let's hide the pores and peach fuzz shall we? Better like this:

Problem solved!

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #43 on:** 6 Sep 2007, 07:29 pm »

Yea, only real men take photos of flowers

You hit the nail on the head when you said they're fairly boring, but when blown up on a bigger than life screen, now there's something to look at. And NO, I personally would waste the good film on flowers.
Careful about the monitor dude, you're starting to sound like a videophile.
Audio, Photography, ANDVideo.....You have to start carrying some kind of special nerd license.

Bob

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #44 on:** 6 Sep 2007, 07:31 pm »

Quote from: nathanm on 6 Sep 2007, 07:14 pm

On second thought, let's hide the pores and peach fuzz shall we? Better like this:

Problem solved!

Naaa, looks fake now. Those little dots all over the pedals look digitized now.
(On my monitor of course, YMMV

)
Bob

nathanm · « **Reply #45 on:** 6 Sep 2007, 08:07 pm »

I was a videophile long before I was an audiophile! When it comes to digital imaging I have to completely switch teams and join the subjectivists. Have to do the empirical, git'r done approach. When I want to get the torpedos in the Death Star's hatch I've gotta pull a Luke Skywalker and turn off all the instruments and just using the goddamn Force already. I gave up on color management a long time ago, it's a great way to make your life more complicated. Your eyes are constantly adjusting anyway. Those monitor pucks are a joke IMO. The way audio nerds feel about oscilloscopes is how I feel about the monitor colorimeter. Things have to be REALLY out of whack in order to get bad color. But then again, you balance pure subjectivity with the eyedropper numbers. So it's not like measurements have no place. Over time you learn what works and accept that different devices are going to render things differently and not get all flustered about color casts here or there. The only way you can see what I'd like you see is if we were both standing in the same room looking at the same screen or print.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #46 on:** 6 Sep 2007, 08:23 pm »

Very true. And here at my job, I've got a large window behind me that bathes my monitor in a wonderful bright glow. Just like a supernova.

So take my criticism of your photo with a grain of salt.....Actually, take my criticism and throw it in the trash. I'll post a photo of my stuff at home (19" flat panel) and recheck it at work (15" CRT) and think, "That looks like HELL!". But then I remember the supernova over my shoulder.
YMMV has never been more true for me.

Bob

byteme · « **Reply #47 on:** 6 Sep 2007, 08:32 pm »

A couple from last week...

byteme · « **Reply #48 on:** 6 Sep 2007, 08:34 pm »

nathanm · « **Reply #49 on:** 6 Sep 2007, 08:45 pm »

Quote from: Bob in St. Louis on 6 Sep 2007, 08:23 pm

Very true. And here at my job, I've got a large window behind me that bathes my monitor in a wonderful bright glow. Just like a supernova.

Indeed, the brightly lit room will put the kybosh on a monitor. That another thing I dig about the Cinema Display, when it's turned off in a regular flourescent-lit room the screen is still BLACK. Ambient light gets sucked into it I guess. Of course it's always more fun to work on computers in low light anyway.

Feel free to bring on the criticism, I don't mind! But in this particular case I must tell you that these are, in fact, the two greatest flower macros ever taken and anyone who thinks differently is just flat out wrong! It's been verified by an independent committee. Georgia O'Keefe ain't got shit on me! But hey don't kill the messenger, I'm only reporting the facts here.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #50 on:** 6 Sep 2007, 08:57 pm »

They do look good Nathan, my point of perspective sucks here. I spouted off too soon considering my viewing conditions. Your references (the "independent committee") can kick my references ass.

I'll shut up now.

Quote from: byteme on 6 Sep 2007, 08:32 pm

A couple from last week...

byteme, Those are neat.....But them again I've been wrong before.
No dude, actually they are good lookin' photos.

Bob

rajacat · « **Reply #51 on:** 6 Sep 2007, 08:58 pm »

by Panasonic FZ-20

ipy · « **Reply #52 on:** 6 Sep 2007, 09:03 pm »

All taken with an old faithful Canon G3.....

nathanm · « **Reply #53 on:** 6 Sep 2007, 09:08 pm »

See, now rajacat's flower is much cooler looking than my flower but what's up with the heavy cyan cast? What's going on there? Rajacat's avatar flower pic looks "correct" but the purple flower shot has some technical issues, also consistent with his previous post of the poppies with the same cyan cast. It could be an aesthetic choice possibly, but unlikely. Only rajacat can answer these annoying, probing criticisms.

Wait, hang on, now here comes ipy putting the smack down! Looks like he's got all his ducks in a row. I say "he" but for all I know ipy could be a lady. Hell, we might as well ALL be ladies what with these sissy flower photos! We need photos of greasy men wrenching on cars or something. Hurry, somebody post something masculine quick!

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #54 on:** 6 Sep 2007, 09:13 pm »

AdamM · « **Reply #55 on:** 6 Sep 2007, 09:53 pm »

Two more!

Prickly:

Soft:

/A

rajacat · « **Reply #56 on:** 6 Sep 2007, 10:38 pm »

Quote from: nathanm on 6 Sep 2007, 09:08 pm

See, now rajacat's flower is much cooler looking than my flower but what's up with the heavy cyan cast? What's going on there? Rajacat's avatar flower pic looks "correct" but the purple flower shot has some technical issues, also consistent with his previous post of the poppies with the same cyan cast. It could be an aesthetic choice possibly, but unlikely. Only rajacat can answer these annoying, probing criticisms.

Wait, hang on, now here comes ipy putting the smack down! Looks like he's got all his ducks in a row. I say "he" but for all I know ipy could be a lady. Hell, we might as well ALL be ladies what with these sissy flower photos! We need photos of greasy men wrenching on cars or something. Hurry, somebody post something masculine quick!

The light wasn't optimum for that shot as it was for my avatar. Hey, you gotta take advantage of the situation when it presents itself. The cyan cast? Hmmm.....I dunno? Maybe it's the cyan clouds that are common in the great Northwest.

Is this masculine enough?

DaveC113 · « **Reply #57 on:** 6 Sep 2007, 11:20 pm »

Its all about the shrooms these days... at least here in CO. Sorry my photo skills aren't that great. I have a Fuji F20, it does OK for a $150 camera. Criticisms are welcome.

navi · « **Reply #58 on:** 6 Sep 2007, 11:54 pm »

Quote from: DaveC113 on 6 Sep 2007, 11:20 pm

Testicles!........ or brain (i have a dirty mind)

JohnR · « **Reply #59 on:** 7 Sep 2007, 12:18 am »

I hope you're not going to eat that....!!

I like Adam's pom poms.