Neck Plug: Interface Detail
by Gordon

Comment by kiwiness:
Awesome - 10!

Phlox
by Gordon

Comment by K-Rob:
Looks over saturated but it's still a great pic. Pretty incredible actually. Nice Job!

Impressionist canvas
by Gordon

Comment by breezy:
I frequent this site not as a photographer (I can't afford the proper equipment) but as an artist. I fell in love with your photograph, and only wish that I could blow it up large enough to cover my living room wall .... you used your lens as a canvas, and regardless of whether it scored well or not, I believe it was a great success. This is art. It was my only 10 this week and I wish it did better. Good job.

Impressionist canvas
by Gordon

Comment by Gordon:
I prefer these flowers because they emphasise the fragility of the subject matter. Perfect blooms don't always do that for me.

I don't always go for the most perfect flowers, because they don't always suit what I'm trying to achieve. Much in the same way that this doesn't have a textbook composition, because I thought that would be dull too, in this particular case.

Impressionist canvas
by Gordon

Comment by paganini:
I didn't say I don't like the shallow DOF, but i am saying shallow dof don't work too well on DPC. I gave him a 6, that's above average already :) It's definitely better than most other studio flower shots. But, in nature, as in studio, you still go for the best images that you can get. Broken flowers aren't one of them.

It's like this shot (and other shots like it for the Flora entry) which will not do well on DPC and i didn't submit it because of it. Instead I submit a soft (boom, automatic deduction for being soft) waterlilly photo for the FLora challenge.


Message edited by author 2003-05-21 17:29:12.

Phlox
by Gordon

Comment by timj351:
Great capture and composition. Maybe a little over exposed by a 1/2 stop or so. The values in the grasshopper could be a little richer. This is one of my favorites. -T

Impressionist canvas
by Gordon

Comment by Journey:
Paganini, it is perfectly acceptable that you don't like this shot or any shot. You don't like the shallow dof, fine. Half your comment though was about the flower being imperfect and hence, according to your thinking, an undesirable model. I like to see nature 'as is' and yes, i realize that once you reduce it to 640px by something px it isn't any longer nature as is because you have already taken it out of its natural context. I just don't like that everything needs to be anti-septically perfect. I see great beauty, and symbolism, in wilted flowers and they used to be one of my favorite subjects.

What i dislike about your comment, and in so many others of dpc voters, is that dwelling on the negative. With this picture i sensed, right or wrong, that someone was looking for a personal vision, beyond shooting things as usual. That, to me, is much more important than a flaw here or there. I detected the same with your Loyal Worker, which is still my all time favorite shot but if you want me to, i can point out a couple of flaws there as well :)

Best of luck finding your Heidi Klum, be it in the flesh or in a flower :)

Phlox
by Gordon

Comment by Galina:
Just for your info - grasshopper looks washed out on my screen. Great DOF.

Impressionist canvas
by Gordon

Comment by paganini:
Sure, it is a representation, but i just don't like it myself. That's all :) Maybe I am going for the Heidi Klum of nature, but is there anything wrong with that? I still give it much higher score than other staged studio flower shots :)

I doubt Gordon got this score because of the broken flowers -- that was my only comment, but i am sure people voted it down because of the shallow focus as well. Besides, this IS DPC -- you vote on the highest impact photo in the shortest amount of time you have to look at it. And nature shots in DPC is always the hardest to present.

FYI -- Heidi Klum in nature is also gonna be harder to photograph than Heidi Klum in studio :) She's also going to be harder to find too.

Originally posted by Journey: Paganini, hope you revisit this picture because i like to say that i radically disagree with your assessment. Of course, just like everyone else you are entirely entitled to your own opinion :) Don't know why i even say that because of all people you don't need reminding of that ;) You object that the focus flower has broken stems (petals?). But you know what? That's NATURE. I like to see nature not an ANTI-SEPTIC man-made 100% perfect rendition of it to suit a photograph glossy. I like to see the 'flaw', the 'oddity' in nature because despite that whatever is real nature always happens to be incredibly harmonious. Nature really is the master artist of all. Judging from your voting comment, what you are after, paganini, is a Hollywood, Heidi Klum version of nature. (glad i could toss this in :) But real nature is so much more beautiful and interesting than the made-over Heidi Klums. Total perfection ends up being BORING. The reason i like this image so much is because the focus flower(s) is (are)in focus but just barely, just barely, just barely, and hence it blends in so harmoniously with the shallow dof other flowers.

Message edited by author 2003-05-21 15:42:54.

Phlox
by Gordon

Comment by karmat:
I really like the depth of field you have chosen on this. The "blurriness" balances itself because the front is blurring and the background is blurry. Very nicely done!!!