# Broken valentine rose,  C & C please



## luvmyfamily (Feb 14, 2012)

One of the roses my hubby gave me broke off as I was putting them in a vase. It rained here this morning, so I took a couple photos of the rose on the wet pavement and then again on the wet deck.








Exposure time, sec:* 1/60
*Aperture (F):* 9.50
*ISO speed rating:* 100
*Lens focal length, mm:* 33.0
*Aperture (APEX):* 9.5
*Flash:* Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
*Shutter speed (APEX):* 0.0156 (1/64)
*Exposure mode:* Manual exposure
*White balance:* Manual white balance
*






Exposure time, sec:* 1/60
*Aperture (F):* 4.00
*ISO speed rating:* 100
*Lens focal length, mm:* 33.0
*Aperture (APEX):* 4.0
*Flash:* Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
*Shutter speed (APEX):* 0.0156 (1/64)
*Exposure mode:* Manual exposure
*White balance:* Manual white balance
*


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 14, 2012)

Oh, very cloudy, dreary day here.....


----------



## Compaq (Feb 14, 2012)

#1
I'm not feeling this one. There might be a few reasons for this. 1) I'm looking right into the flower. 2) The framing isn't something I really like. So much empty space, imo. I think you wanted to convey an emotion, here. I think emotions are best conveyed in black and white or by desaturation. Those are my own opinions, however. One thins, though, the flower is a nice contrast against the concrete. Perhaps if the flower was smaller (you backed up more) to really make it look like the rose was thrown or something. When I think of it, maybe there's too little empty space.

#2
This one's better, imho. The angled view of the rose makes a huge difference. Also, less empty space. It's sharp, but maybe not in the ideal place (imo). I'd like to have it sharp in the centre of the flower. Also, that white part upper left draws the eye severely. I'd like to see this after desaturation or BW. Over all, I'm not really feeling this shot either, but I think it's better than the first one.

Keep in mind I'm no expert.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 14, 2012)

Compaq said:


> #1
> I'm not feeling this one. There might be a few reasons for this. 1) I'm looking right into the flower. 2) The framing isn't something I really like. So much empty space, imo. I think you wanted to convey an emotion, here. I think emotions are best conveyed in black and white or by desaturation. Those are my own opinions, however. One thins, though, the flower is a nice contrast against the concrete. Perhaps if the flower was smaller (you backed up more) to really make it look like the rose was thrown or something. When I think of it, maybe there's too little empty space.
> 
> #2
> ...



Thank you for your constructive opinions   This was meant to be simple.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 14, 2012)

Oh and the white part at the top was a glare from the wet deck that was blurred.


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 14, 2012)

I like the mood, colors and textures of #1 best, but the angle/composition of #2 best.I think if #1 had the composition of #2 it would be a strong photo.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 14, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> I like the mood, colors and textures of #1 best, but the angle/composition of #2 best.I think if #1 had the composition of #2 it would be a strong photo.



Yeah, I would retake and put the flower at an ankle like #2 but now roads are drying up from rain.  I could use a glass of water, lol.


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 14, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > I like the mood, colors and textures of #1 best, but the angle/composition of #2 best.I think if #1 had the composition of #2 it would be a strong photo.
> ...



Why not? I'd love to see the results


----------



## Compaq (Feb 14, 2012)

Do you think raindrop macro shots only are taken right after a shower?  If you need water, bring it :thumbsup:


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 14, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > blackrose89 said:
> ...



Will go try again  But keep in mind, this is really meant to be simple...just thought of what to do with the rose I broke putting it in the vase.


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 14, 2012)

Hmm I may want to try this type of photo with a black rose. I've been wanting to incorporate my love for gothic art into my photography, just haven't attempted it yet.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 14, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> Hmm I may want to try this type of photo with a black rose. I've been wanting to incorporate my love for gothic art into my photography, just haven't attempted it yet.



If you do, I want to see!  My oldest son and his GF love gothic!  I retook the picture, but not as good comp as the 1st.  Posting in just a bit.....


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 14, 2012)

Last try for today, got stuff to do like dishes and laundry.  This was 2nd try, but I still like the comp in pic #1 as well.  Also, I am not sure I'd like this in a B&W (although I love B&W) because it would drown out the color of the rose which is what the focus is.  Hmmmmmm..............






 Exposure time, sec:* 1/60
*Aperture (F):* 9.50
*ISO speed rating:* 100
*Lens focal length, mm:* 41.0**
*Aperture (APEX):* 9.5
*Flash:* Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
*Shutter speed (APEX):* 0.0156 (1/64)
*Exposure mode:* Manual exposure
*White balance:* Manual white balance
*


----------



## MTVision (Feb 14, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:
			
		

> Last try for today, got stuff to do like dishes and laundry.  This was 2nd try, but I still like the comp in pic #1 as well.  Also, I am not sure I'd like this in a B&W (although I love B&W) because it would drown out the color of the rose which is what the focus is.  Hmmmmmm..............
> 
> Exposure time, sec: 1/60
> Aperture (F): 9.50
> ...



The first 2 are much better IMO! The rose doesn't look to be in as good shape as before. Very pretty rose though! Happy Valentines Day!

Shouldn't your man do the dishes and laundry today? It should be your day - screw the men!!!  LOL!


----------



## Compaq (Feb 14, 2012)

Could you explain what you want with this picture? What is it you want to convey? If it is what I think it is, the glowingly red rose isn't doing the trick (for me).


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 14, 2012)

Compaq said:


> Could you explain what you want with this picture? What is it you want to convey? If it is what I think it is, the glowingly red rose isn't doing the trick (for me).



Photo meant to be simple.  I simply broke a rose while putting it in a vase and thought of putting it to use as a photo subject and practice.  I'm practicing......I can do it in B&W, hmmmm.
Megan....yeah, I guess he should be doing dishes and laundry today


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 14, 2012)

MTVision said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I personally love the reshoot. But that's just me. 

My hubby treated me right!!! I woke up with cards, presents, shopping trip, donuts and coffee


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2012)

MTVision said:


> Shouldn't your man do the dishes and laundry today? It should be your day - screw the men!!!  LOL!



Really? I always considered V day to be a two way street.. not just one way! I try to make every day somewhat romantic and affectionate... not just V-day! And yes.. Screwing is nice too!


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > Shouldn't your man do the dishes and laundry today? It should be your day - screw the men!!! LOL!
> ...



I think a good portion of women consider the "screwing" part of the two way street  just kidding


----------



## MTVision (Feb 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> Really? I always considered V day to be a two way street.. not just one way! I try to make every day somewhat romantic and affectionate... not just V-day! And yes.. Screwing is nice too!



I was just kidding!


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > Shouldn't your man do the dishes and laundry today? It should be your day - screw the men!!! LOL!
> ...



LMAO!!!!!! Screwing is a given on Vday


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2012)

MTVision said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yea.. that is what they all say!  




:hug::


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



We should probably go to the marriage and relationship forum for this, LOL


----------



## Compaq (Feb 14, 2012)

Sure, simple is great! However, what was it you wanted to practice? You can't rely on the angle of the shot by itself, it need some weight. I thought you wanted to send across a message of "failed valentine" or something, with a broken rose on the ground. I then thought that desaturating the image would greatly improve it, by getting the mentioned message across better.

But if you can't explain what it is you took the photo for, other than "for practice" and just for the sake of taking it, then I'm not sure how to help. Something like this was what I had in mind, but I may not be improving it at all. Just how I would have edited it.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2012)

MTVision said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So Screwing is not nice? Is that what you mean? Or just not with me?


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2012)

Compaq said:


> Sure, simple is great! However, what was it you wanted to practice? You can't rely on the angle of the shot by itself, it need some weight. I thought you wanted to send across a message of "failed valentine" or something, with a broken rose on the ground. I then thought that desaturating the image would greatly improve it, by getting the mentioned message across better.
> 
> But if you can't explain what it is you took the photo for, other than "for practice" and just for the sake of taking it, then I'm not sure how to help. Something like this was what I had in mind, but I may not be improving it at all. Just how I would have edited it.



Much more *goth*.. and here I thought you were sweet and innocent!


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 14, 2012)

Compaq said:


> Sure, simple is great! However, what was it you wanted to practice? You can't rely on the angle of the shot by itself, it need some weight. I thought you wanted to send across a message of "failed valentine" or something, with a broken rose on the ground. I then thought that desaturating the image would greatly improve it, by getting the mentioned message across better.
> 
> But if you can't explain what it is you took the photo for, other than "for practice" and just for the sake of taking it, then I'm not sure how to help. Something like this was what I had in mind, but I may not be improving it at all. Just how I would have edited it.



Love this edit


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Compaq said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, simple is great! However, what was it you wanted to practice? You can't rely on the angle of the shot by itself, it need some weight. I thought you wanted to send across a message of "failed valentine" or something, with a broken rose on the ground. I then thought that desaturating the image would greatly improve it, by getting the mentioned message across better.
> ...



I love it!!! I've got gothic down to a science in my sketches... but photography... not so much


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 14, 2012)

Compaq said:


> Sure, simple is great! However, what was it you wanted to practice? You can't rely on the angle of the shot by itself, it need some weight. I thought you wanted to send across a message of "failed valentine" or something, with a broken rose on the ground. I then thought that desaturating the image would greatly improve it, by getting the mentioned message across better.
> 
> But if you can't explain what it is you took the photo for, other than "for practice" and just for the sake of taking it, then I'm not sure how to help. Something like this was what I had in mind, but I may not be improving it at all. Just how I would have edited it.



I love the edit too!  I thought you meant completely B&W.....I actually thought of doing this.  I guess I need to have a "theme" for every photo with a meaning?


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Do you not have a valentine?  :hug::


----------



## Compaq (Feb 14, 2012)

Well, I'm just saying that for a photograph to be successful, it needs to be more than a shot of a flower. I'm sure Derrel or Bitter or anyone more experienced than myself could write in lengths about this, and formulate that in a good, understandable way. I'm trying to say that if you press the shutter, something must have made you do that. Being artistic for the sake of "being artistic" isn't really something I like. I saw a video on youtube once, I think it was that Gavin guy, about shooting a flower on a plank, with a weird WB and heavy vignette from photoshop. I'm guessing several people went out into their back yard to shoot flowers on planks with weird WBs and with heavy vignette, but those photos do not mean anything. They did it because they saw a video on it, they initiate the shot by themselves due some something they felt.

I don't know why you really took that photo, other than "for practice", and I'm not sure what you practiced. If you had a "reason" for taking it, whether it was because you liked the contrast between flower on road, or because you wanted to convey an emotion of something, or something that might provoke some feelings in the viewer, then I'd understand it. I don't know how much time you put into the photo, either. For all I know, you may have put a flower on the road and snapped away just for the sake of "getting a cool pic of flower on road".

I'm not sure if I'm reaching through, here.

/opinion


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > MTVision said:
> ...




hahaha.. yes.. I do! I just have to give Megan hell, or she thinks I am ignoring her!


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...


Kinda like how if I ignore Charlie he thinks I'm mad


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Oh jeez, what has this thread turned into?
How romantic. Gipson the sex fiend .


----------



## IByte (Feb 14, 2012)

blackrose89 said:
			
		

> My hubby treated me right!!! I woke up with cards, presents, shopping trip, donuts and coffee



All I got was bag of garbage for the trash before I left this morning for class >&hellip;<


----------



## Compaq (Feb 14, 2012)

So much for trying to have a discussion


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 14, 2012)

Compaq said:


> So much for trying to have a discussion


Hey Compaq, Gipson's ignoring me.

Watch this. Hey Gipson , are you ignoring me?


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 14, 2012)

Compaq said:


> So much for trying to have a discussion


For what it's worth I loved your edit and am paying attention to why you're saying! I'm very much interested in gothic style still life photos, but I'm unsure as to where to start. Seems like a challenge to make a still life a stand out photo and not random. I have maybe two still life photos I'm actually ok with.


----------



## Compaq (Feb 14, 2012)

I don't really know what gothic means, so you've beaten me there  I think crows and big houses, but that may be inaccurate


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 14, 2012)

Compaq said:


> I don't really know what gothic means, so you've beaten me there  I think crows and big houses, but that may be inaccurate


I've been trying to find other photos for inspiration or a starting a point, but it seems like it takes some pretty decent equipment to pull it off. I'm not really finding goth photography that's really within my capabilities. Although I do like your edit. I've always done gothic art. And I feel although it's getting better and is not bad, my photography is rather boring so far. I want to find my style. My creative voice if you will.


----------



## Compaq (Feb 14, 2012)

blackrose89 said:
			
		

> I want to find my style./QUOTE]
> 
> Who doesn't?  Finding one's style, and be confident in it, that's the hard part, I think.


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 14, 2012)

Compaq said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 14, 2012)

I think this is an exmaple of something I would really really enjoy, but I'm pretty sure  a good amount of professional equipment went into this to pull this stuff off


Image Detail for - http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WmfnL79SyIE/S92M1AbHNLI/AAAAAAAACVM/t9JC19PA7EE/s1600/Emo-Red-Rose.jpg


----------



## Derrel (Feb 14, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> Oh and the white part at the top was a glare from the wet deck that was blurred.



Yes, that white overexposed area is really killing the shot...the rose as seen on concrete isn't working too well for me. WHat my mind wants to see is the "broken rose" that the title of the post led me to believe would be the subject of perhaps a photo. As shown, some other title, like "short-stemmed red rose on back deck" seems more descriptive. The "broken" part is all in your own mind...I do not see a "broken" rose...I see one that simply has no stem, and then a second one that appears to have a short stem, almost as if it was designed to be slipped into the button-hole on a man's jacket lapel, so he can take you out to dinner with a red rose boutonniere. That is of course, what hubby had planned right??? He deliberately damaged that ONE,single rose, so that you can make it in to a boutonniere for him, when he takes you out to dinner tonight! Right???


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > luvmyfamily said:
> ...



I know you are MAD... I just don't like it when you are ANGRY!


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2012)

LightSpeed said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > MTVision said:
> ...



  Sorry.. just feeling a little schizo!  :er:


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2012)

IByte said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Post a picture so we can commiserate with you.. (and see if you are hot?)


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2012)

Compaq said:


> So much for trying to have a discussion




:hug::


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2012)

LightSpeed said:


> Compaq said:
> 
> 
> > So much for trying to have a discussion
> ...



No... I was driving home from work, you fool!      Although if you keep doing the "GRUMPY" Lightspeed with silly posts about NL... I might! lol!


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2012)

Compaq said:


> I don't really know what gothic means, so you've beaten me there  I think crows and big houses, but that may be inaccurate



Think Vampires and suicidal Teenagers in black... that is basically what it has become!


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Compaq said:
> 
> 
> > I don't really know what gothic means, so you've beaten me there  I think crows and big houses, but that may be inaccurate
> ...




Vampires have been insanely tainted now. Screw Twilight! Anne Rice knows how to write vampire books.

Something else. I've always been into gothic art, but I think I'm growing out of the whole "bad ass gothic" stage.

Goth I'm really is the older stuff. The orignal Crow, Anne Rice etc.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> I think this is an exmaple of something I would really really enjoy, but I'm pretty sure  a good amount of professional equipment went into this to pull this stuff off
> 
> 
> Image Detail for - http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WmfnL79SyIE/S92M1AbHNLI/AAAAAAAACVM/t9JC19PA7EE/s1600/Emo-Red-Rose.jpg



Interesting... sort of! Not really.. a well lit white background... a shot too close to the background for the halo effect.. and selective color...  so?


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Compaq said:
> ...



Lestat is my favorite bad boy!   But then she (Rice) went all goody two shoes ... lost her mind!


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > I think this is an exmaple of something I would really really enjoy, but I'm pretty sure  a good amount of professional equipment went into this to pull this stuff off
> ...



Bad example, I meant to remove the post I thought the same thing when I really looked at it again.  I think I'm going to attempt low key again now that I have my new camera


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...





I was a Luis lover! I've only read the first two.


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 14, 2012)

But Lestat is an ultimate bad ass. I would LLLOOOVVVEE to see Edward (Twilight) and Lestat in a room for 5 minutes


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > blackrose89 said:
> ...



read them all... she managed to keep it somewhat decent through most of them.... enough to where I wish Pandora would show up and BITE ME!


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> But Lestat is an ultimate bad ass. I would LLLOOOVVVEE to see Edward (Twilight) and Lestat in a room for 5 minutes


They would probably end up in a Man HUG!


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 14, 2012)

Yeah Twilight came after my teen years. When I was a teen, I was into the whole hot topic, emo, band shirt, fairies fad


----------



## APHPHOTO (Feb 14, 2012)

I agree. Theres something missing. Maybe some loose pedals laying around and maybe some water droplets on the rose. Maybe a more interesting background.


----------



## MTVision (Feb 14, 2012)

blackrose89 said:
			
		

> Yeah Twilight came after my teen years. When I was a teen, I was into the whole hot topic, emo, band shirt, fairies fad



Your 22 right? 

The whole twilight hysteria started a couple years ago but you were probably 15 (or 16)when Twilight was originally published in 2005.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2012)

MTVision said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



She is just a BABY!   <evil Grin>!


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 14, 2012)

MTVision said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have no clue when the books came out. I meant the hysteria.


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > blackrose89 said:
> ...


Should I find this creepy? Lol


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > MTVision said:
> ...



Only if you like it!  Bwahhahhaahahahaaaa!


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> LightSpeed said:
> 
> 
> > Compaq said:
> ...




I Officially closed that thread Gipson , you're late to the party son..............and contrary to Vtec the image was NOT improperly exposed.
I think he got mad at me.


----------



## ph0enix (Feb 14, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> Should I find this creepy? Lol



Please do!!!


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2012)

LightSpeed said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > LightSpeed said:
> ...



You were being a Lightspeed! What did you expect?  lol!


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 15, 2012)

Compaq said:


> Well, I'm just saying that for a photograph to be successful, it needs to be more than a shot of a flower. I'm sure Derrel or Bitter or anyone more experienced than myself could write in lengths about this, and formulate that in a good, understandable way. I'm trying to say that if you press the shutter, something must have made you do that. Being artistic for the sake of "being artistic" isn't really something I like. I saw a video on youtube once, I think it was that Gavin guy, about shooting a flower on a plank, with a weird WB and heavy vignette from photoshop. I'm guessing several people went out into their back yard to shoot flowers on planks with weird WBs and with heavy vignette, but those photos do not mean anything. They did it because they saw a video on it, they initiate the shot by themselves due some something they felt.
> 
> I don't know why you really took that photo, other than "for practice", and I'm not sure what you practiced. If you had a "reason" for taking it, whether it was because you liked the contrast between flower on road, or because you wanted to convey an emotion of something, or something that might provoke some feelings in the viewer, then I'd understand it. I don't know how much time you put into the photo, either. For all I know, you may have put a flower on the road and snapped away just for the sake of "getting a cool pic of flower on road".
> 
> ...



First of all, I really do appreciate you taking the time to help, and also edit my photo.  I DO understand where you are coming from, totally understand, comprehend what you are trying to explain.  I agree that an image of a flower is boring, I NEVER photograph flowers, just yesterday, it was Valentines Day, so I thought it would be cool to do something with the flower I broke by accident.  I mainly photograph people, like this one, 





however, photographing people can be boring as well. I have a historic graveyard fascination, the one's that date back to the 17 and 1800's such as this one,




so perhaps a better photo would have been the broken rose on the old grave stone and a faded B&W as you did with my photo??  This historic grave yard is in my neighborhood and I'd like to get some better photo's of it.  I did some research on this historic graveyard trying to find out who was buried there and found out they were slaves during the civil war era.  I also have a facsination with OLD barns, the ones where roofs are caving in and old one-room school houses.  I agree with you to some extent, but IMO, I do not believe a photo always needs to tell a *long* story.  I don't think there is anything wrong with simplicity.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 15, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> Compaq said:
> 
> 
> > blackrose89 said:
> ...


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 15, 2012)

Oh, and I'll bring my Ouija board....   Seriously, when the rose dies, I will walk over to the historic graveyard....Compaq has my brain going


----------



## Compaq (Feb 15, 2012)

Simple photos are much like short stories: the less you tell, the more the viewer must figure out. This forcing the viewer to think is what makes so many street shots good story-telling pictures, I think. Telling a story and simplicity go hand in hand.

Water drop shots can be cool, but those do not tell much of a story other than "we're able to do it". Those can be great shots, but not in an emotional way. I think there's a difference there, a major one.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 15, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> Compaq said:
> 
> 
> > blackrose89 said:
> ...


----------



## gsgary (Feb 15, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> Compaq said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I'm just saying that for a photograph to be successful, it needs to be more than a shot of a flower. I'm sure Derrel or Bitter or anyone more experienced than myself could write in lengths about this, and formulate that in a good, understandable way. I'm trying to say that if you press the shutter, something must have made you do that. Being artistic for the sake of "being artistic" isn't really something I like. I saw a video on youtube once, I think it was that Gavin guy, about shooting a flower on a plank, with a weird WB and heavy vignette from photoshop. I'm guessing several people went out into their back yard to shoot flowers on planks with weird WBs and with heavy vignette, but those photos do not mean anything. They did it because they saw a video on it, they initiate the shot by themselves due some something they felt.
> ...



I have been shooting flowers lately and they seem to do very well in club competitions, do you find these boring ?






shot with 120 film 27 years out of date 





Another 120 film shot on FP4


----------

