The rose looks fair, but fairer we it deem For that sweet odour which doth in it live

S

straycat

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,582
Edit My Images
Yes
some photos i take and i think i like that one its quite good.




JM7_0149_zpsb795ef64.jpg
 
Needed a slight adjustment IMHO.:)

JM7-0149-zpsb795ef64.jpg
 
you just ruined it,thats nothing like its original colours.
 
Looks a touch under to me, though i think this suits the background well, I would like to see the petals a touch brighter and more vibrant in the shot.
 
er,you wouldnt paint a tiger green because it looked better would you?
 
straycat said:
er,you wouldnt paint a tiger green because it looked better would you?
Click to expand...


No I wouldn't, I hang my head in shame.........................:)
 
I think this is the first thread on here which is given a title using a Shakespeare Sonnet (Is it Sonnet 54?)
Lovely rose BTW.
 
I think it is a tad underexposed. But the edited one has lost the subtlety of the petals for me, that is. Who said " a rose, is a rose, is a rose", I dont think that was Shakespeare? Or, was it Francis Bacon!!
 
Cichlid said:
I think it is a tad underexposed. But the edited one has lost the subtlety of the petals for me, that is. Who said " a rose, is a rose, is a rose", I dont think that was Shakespeare? Or, was it Francis Bacon!!
Click to expand...

Gertrude Stein wasn't it?

I prefer the edit too, the original is too dark. Perhaps there is a middle ground that allows for the subtlety of the petals as well as the colour and 'pop'?
 
i was trying to explain this is what it looked like,thats why i liked it.

it wasnt a bright flower it was in the gloom and shade.

to me i liked the darkness,people expect a lot of the time a flower to be fluffy and happy.
 
I also think there's an area between these two versions that would work and give an excellent shot. The original does look flat and to me doesnt portray a rose thats in the shade, it looks like a poorly exposed shot.

straycat said:
you just ruined it,thats nothing like its original colours.
Click to expand...
With a reply like that to someone who has taken the time and trouble to do an edit, whether you like the result or not, do you think it would be a good idea to put a red cross in your edit box to stop it happening again.
 
Last edited:
Trev4 said:
With a reply like that to someone who has taken the time and trouble to do an edit, whether you like the result or not, do you think it would be a good idea to put a red cross in your edit box to stop it happening again.
Click to expand...

This. x2.
 
straycat said:
i was trying to explain this is what it looked like,thats why i liked it.

it wasnt a bright flower it was in the gloom and shade.

to me i liked the darkness,people expect a lot of the time a flower to be fluffy and happy.
Click to expand...

You can still have it dark while retaining the colour and vibrancy that is what defines flowers...
 
Trev4 said:
I also think there's an area between these two versions that would work and give an excellent shot. The original does look flat and to me doesnt portray a rose thats in the shade, it looks like a poorly exposed shot.


With a reply like that to someone who has taken the time and trouble to do an edit, whether you like the result or not, do you think it would be a good idea to put a red cross in your edit box to stop it happening again.
Click to expand...

i didnt mean to come across rude,i didnt realise i was open to edit.

so thanks to the op for the edit :)
 
well it looks like i am alone in my taste.

then again i prefer blind willy johnson to robert cray which is as good a analogy as you will get. :LOL:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top