Page 1 of 2
Flowers (not 2010)
Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 4:39 pm
by pakodominguez
This is from October 2008
A700 + Tamron 70-200 f2.8 1/250 @ f11
Re: Flowers (not 2010)
Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 5:20 pm
by aster
Hi Pako,
That's a beautiful 2008 lotus flower.
Soft colours and nice reflection on the water. I like the use of the DoF as well.
Thanks for sharing,
Yildiz
Re: Flowers (not 2010)
Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 5:43 pm
by sury
Pako,
That was beautiful. I too love the reflection of the flower in foreground. Would a cropping of OOF flower increase the impact?
Sury
Re: Flowers (not 2010)
Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 6:00 pm
by Dr. Harout
Nice one, Pako.
Re: Flowers (not 2010)
Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 6:58 pm
by sury
Sony A100. Nov. 2007. Natural light.
Re: Flowers (not 2010)
Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 7:26 pm
by Dr. Harout
hmmm, Sury that gives me an idea to experiment. Thanks.
Re: Flowers (not 2010)
Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 10:57 pm
by Birma
Two great flower pictures.
Pako, I especially like the reflection in the water.
Sury, great backlighting.
Re: Flowers (not 2010)
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 7:29 pm
by sury
Yet one more from March 2008 from the backyard.
Re: Flowers (not 2010)
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 3:11 am
by Greg Beetham
Vey nice Lotus Pako, I tend to agree with Sury, when you scroll the oof one out of view it looks better I think.
Good available light shot there Sury, and the violet 'hibiscusy' looking one is splendid...although I think I'd prefer the missing piece of petal at the top being there.
Greg
Re: Flowers (not 2010)
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 6:01 am
by sury
Greg,
Thank you. The missing petal is there. It was bent in such a way you see a reddish purple profile of it.
Your comment about the negative space that bent created is a valid one. I could have claimed to keep
the natural look untouched
but honestly I did not pay attention to that aspect. I will keep that in mind
in future.
With best regards,
Sury
Re: Flowers (not 2010)
Posted: Fri May 07, 2010 12:37 am
by pakodominguez
sury wrote:Pako,
That was beautiful. I too love the reflection of the flower in foreground. Would a cropping of OOF flower increase the impact?
Sury
Hello Sury (and the others asking for "mutilate" my picture)
I understand what you mean. The first waterlily stand by herself, and the reflection in the water help. But I do like the repetition of forms and perspective the flower in the background suggest.
Regards
Re: Flowers (not 2010)
Posted: Fri May 07, 2010 4:09 am
by sury
Pako,
Well, if you put it that way, then it should stay that way....
With best regards,
Sury
Re: Flowers (not 2010)
Posted: Sat May 08, 2010 6:16 pm
by aster
One from yesterday... Definitely from 2010!
Yildiz
Re: Flowers (not 2010)
Posted: Sat May 08, 2010 6:38 pm
by Birma
Hi Yildiz, nice to see the cactus again - it is obviously thriving. Did you mean to put it in the "not 2010" thread?
Re: Flowers (not 2010)
Posted: Sat May 08, 2010 7:02 pm
by pakodominguez
January 2009 - I had rented the A900 from Adorama rentals department. I don't recall if I took this picture with the Sony 70-200 f2.8 or the Tamron 70-200 f2.8.
