Nov 11, 2007, 08:51
Irma and Guerito,
Thanks for your input. It's a lot to think about, and I'll try to take it in.
Irma, thanks for your thoughts on flowers. I hadn't put into words what it is I like about flower, but when I think about roses I think about softness. The processing got rid of the lines, but it also made blocky those gradual changes in tones that the flower has. I liked that the hard lines were gone, and thought that this would give it an impressionistic effect. I'm sure you've heard of the style before, but in it the detail of the object is abandoned which allows people to fill in the missing gaps with their own ideas and impressions. All art does that, but for me impressionism does it especially well. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be Monet. But I did like that it gave me the same feel of one of those paintings. For that reason I still stand by my work. I still like it. However, I see a point in what you say that I can agree with too. In the post-processing I lost much subtlity in texture, color and tones. So maybe I could rework it to make it better.
Guerito. No offense taken. Rather, thanks for taking your time to try and help me get better. Your comment was helpful, especially the part about a need to be esp. creative with trite subjects. Hadn't thought of that. Just saw something pretty and wanted to capture it. The DOF was probably about a small as I could get it. I was shooting with Macro filters (not lenses as I'm not rich enough for those yet). This cuts the DOF to much shorter than any aperture setting on my camera. However, with the post-processing there's really no way you could have noticed that. And much thanks for the link to the tutorials. I'll check them out very soon.
Best regards,
D.J.
Thanks for your input. It's a lot to think about, and I'll try to take it in.
Irma, thanks for your thoughts on flowers. I hadn't put into words what it is I like about flower, but when I think about roses I think about softness. The processing got rid of the lines, but it also made blocky those gradual changes in tones that the flower has. I liked that the hard lines were gone, and thought that this would give it an impressionistic effect. I'm sure you've heard of the style before, but in it the detail of the object is abandoned which allows people to fill in the missing gaps with their own ideas and impressions. All art does that, but for me impressionism does it especially well. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be Monet. But I did like that it gave me the same feel of one of those paintings. For that reason I still stand by my work. I still like it. However, I see a point in what you say that I can agree with too. In the post-processing I lost much subtlity in texture, color and tones. So maybe I could rework it to make it better.
Guerito. No offense taken. Rather, thanks for taking your time to try and help me get better. Your comment was helpful, especially the part about a need to be esp. creative with trite subjects. Hadn't thought of that. Just saw something pretty and wanted to capture it. The DOF was probably about a small as I could get it. I was shooting with Macro filters (not lenses as I'm not rich enough for those yet). This cuts the DOF to much shorter than any aperture setting on my camera. However, with the post-processing there's really no way you could have noticed that. And much thanks for the link to the tutorials. I'll check them out very soon.
Best regards,
D.J.