# One, Two or None?



## Frequency (Jan 12, 2012)

_*Which one you like more?
**
One ?*_ 





_* or Two?*_




_*or None?

*__*C&C Please

Regards  *_


----------



## jake337 (Jan 12, 2012)

You forgot to add the option of both.


----------



## Frequency (Jan 12, 2012)

O, I  never expected such one 

Regards


----------



## jake337 (Jan 12, 2012)

Frequency said:


> O, I  never expected such one Regards


But I do prefer the second to the first.


----------



## Joey_Ricard (Jan 12, 2012)

Both are nice compositions


----------



## sm4him (Jan 12, 2012)

I like the colors in #1 the best, but I prefer the composition and the sharpness of the flowers in the second.
I think I'd like #1 better if the flower were not right in the middle of the frame, but rather along the right side rule-of-thirds vertical line, so that it would be closer to the edge of the photo, but "swaying" INTO the photo.


----------



## Miladymimi (Jan 12, 2012)

The second is my favorite, but I do like the rich colors in number 1.


----------



## KenC (Jan 12, 2012)

I prefer the first for a couple of reasons.  The second has a lot of reflection from the leaves and the water which decrease saturation.  Also, like many two-flower compositions, it is not that interesting - too much symmetry perhaps.  In the first, I might crop a bit off the top and I agree with the comment about how the flower should be bending in towards the center, but this isn't a major defect to me.


----------



## Audible_Chocolate (Jan 12, 2012)

One imo


----------



## Beast95 (Jan 12, 2012)

I like the colors in 1, they are too washed out by the reflections in 2. Everything in 2 looks like it has a reflection. I am huge on bright, vivid colors personally
(the flower in 1 is VERY bright. Almost too bright. I love it.)


----------



## dakkon76 (Jan 12, 2012)

I like the first one better, but would like it more if it were cropped a bit tighter and more to the lower right, since that the way the flower is pointing. Like both though.


----------



## Frequency (Jan 13, 2012)

jake337 said:


> Frequency said:
> 
> 
> > O, I  never expected such one Regards
> ...



Thank you Jake

regards


----------



## Frequency (Jan 13, 2012)

Joey_Ricard said:


> Both are nice compositions



Thank you so much Joey 

regards


----------



## Frequency (Jan 13, 2012)

sm4him said:


> I like the colors in #1 the best, but I prefer the composition and the sharpness of the flowers in the second.
> I think I'd like #1 better if the flower were not right in the middle of the frame, but rather along the right side rule-of-thirds vertical line, so that it would be closer to the edge of the photo, but "swaying" INTO the photo.



Thank you sm4him.....
You are right; the first one has compositionally bad elements

Regards


----------



## Frequency (Jan 13, 2012)

Miladymimi said:


> The second is my favorite, but I do like the rich colors in number 1.



Thank you miladymimi for your kind words 

Regards


----------



## Frequency (Jan 13, 2012)

KenC said:


> I prefer the first for a couple of reasons.  The second has a lot of reflection from the leaves and the water which decrease saturation.  Also, like many two-flower compositions, it is not that interesting - too much symmetry perhaps.  In the first, I might crop a bit off the top and I agree with the comment about how the flower should be bending in towards the center, but this isn't a major defect to me.



Thank you KenC....these images were from a still pond and there was hardly any chance that the stem of the flower would bend with a breeze...

regards


----------



## Frequency (Jan 13, 2012)

Audible_Chocolate said:


> One imo



Thank you Choco.....

Regards


----------



## Frequency (Jan 13, 2012)

Beast95 said:


> I like the colors in 1, they are too washed out by the reflections in 2. Everything in 2 looks like it has a reflection. I am huge on bright, vivid colors personally
> (the flower in 1 is VERY bright. Almost too bright. I love it.)


Thank you beast 95for your visit and comment

Regards


----------



## Frequency (Jan 13, 2012)

dakkon76 said:


> I like the first one better, but would like it more if it were cropped a bit tighter and more to the lower right, since that the way the flower is pointing. Like both though.



Thank you dakkon for liking these images

Regards


----------



## Joel_W (Jan 13, 2012)

Not much more I can add that hasn't been said. One by far is a technically a better photograph in terms of exposure. Two is washed out. You can vastly improve number 1 by cropping out some of the lower portion of the photo,  and moving the single flower towards the left side via the rule of 3rds.


----------



## Frequency (Jan 14, 2012)

Joel_W said:


> Not much more I can add that hasn't been said. One by far is a technically a better photograph in terms of exposure. Two is washed out. You can vastly improve number 1 by cropping out some of the lower portion of the photo,  and moving the single flower towards the left side via the rule of 3rds.



Thank you Joe; points noted

Regards


----------



## pburwell (Jan 17, 2012)

I love the first one.  The reflections on the second one I find distracting.

Best regards,

Paul


----------



## gsgary (Jan 17, 2012)

Shot 2 :thumbup:


----------



## PhotoTish (Jan 17, 2012)

Close call but ... I like photo 2 :thumbup:


----------



## Scuba (Jan 17, 2012)

Frequency, I would have to say neither at this point.  Here is why.  The first is underexposed and the second is way over saturated.  I would be interested in seeing #1 with the exposure bumped up plus a little contrast boost and the second with the magenta saturation turned down.  I think these shots have some potential just can't say in current processing.


----------



## Frequency (Jan 20, 2012)

pburwell said:


> I love the first one.  The reflections on the second one I find distracting.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Paul



Thank you Paul


----------



## Frequency (Jan 20, 2012)

gsgary said:


> Shot 2 :thumbup:



Thank you gary


----------



## Frequency (Jan 20, 2012)

PhotoTish said:


> Close call but ... I like photo 2 :thumbup:



Thank you Tish


----------



## Frequency (Jan 20, 2012)

Scuba said:


> Frequency, I would have to say neither at this point.  Here is why.  The first is underexposed and the second is way over saturated.  I would be interested in seeing #1 with the exposure bumped up plus a little contrast boost and the second with the magenta saturation turned down.  I think these shots have some potential just can't say in current processing.



Thank you scuba.... i am more than OK to edit, if you have time 

regards


----------



## Scuba (Jan 23, 2012)

Here is what I came up with really quick.  Hard to mess with the saturation too much in a JPG but I gave it a shot.  I think with the saturation lowered some more detail came out of the flowers.  I think on the raw image you could do this more effectively.


----------



## Scuba (Jan 23, 2012)

wow I need to stop using webshots.... that got destroyed during upload.


----------



## albertaclipper (Jan 24, 2012)

Frequency said:
			
		

> Which one you like more?
> 
> One ?
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/flashbackr/6685108901/
> ...



I really like both. But if I have to pick one only. It will be no 2


----------



## Frequency (Jan 24, 2012)

Scuba said:


> wow I need to stop using webshots.... that got destroyed during upload.



Thank you Scuba for your words and efforts


----------



## Frequency (Jan 24, 2012)

albertaclipper said:


> Frequency said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you so much, Alberta


----------



## EcoWarrior (Jan 29, 2012)

I prefer number one for the more natural look.


----------



## arkipix1001 (Jan 29, 2012)

i'd pick #1...


----------



## Frequency (Jan 30, 2012)

EcoWarrior said:


> I prefer number one for the more natural look.



Thank you Ecowarrior

regards


----------



## Frequency (Jan 30, 2012)

arkipix1001 said:


> i'd pick #1...



Thank you arkipix1001

Regards


----------

