[DJ1234]

Okay, so sometimes in life I get lucky. Okay, I have to say a lot of times in life I get lucky. I was in photoshop playing around last night with a picture I had taken a week ago. I went into the curves program and opened up the red and played a little with that, then I opened up the blue and noticed that there's a little gradient bar to the left and another to the bottom. Well I played with the one on the bottom but set it back to normal. Then I clicked on the one to the left and a little pencil icon came up. I made a squiggly line and all of the sudden my picture looked really cool, or so I think. (Side note, I did put it in here to get critiqued, even though I have other questions too). Anyway, can anyone tell me what all those little things (i.e. what does the graph measure on the curves, and what do those gradient bars do? ). Well, once again, let me know what you think.

[Irma]

I really don't know whether it is your picture or my monitor. It is not calibrated. But what I see from here is a very heavy post processing...

[DJ1234]

Thanks for the comment Irma,

No, it's not your computer. It was heavily post-processed. I was just fumbling around with some stuff and this was the result. Personally I like the effect, but I'm wondering what others think. Do you like it? Or were you politely saying I had made a/multiple big mistake(s). I've tried photoshop recently and have gotten a lot of comments about going overboard. But the thing is I'm usually pleased with the results. The ones I'm not pleased with I don't take the time to show here.

The thing is, is that art is very subjective. What one person sees as a failure another may consider genius. However the problem is that there are certain rules that really do make things look more appealing, and I'm not sure I have enough experience to break those rules. So, if you (the next person who decides to critique this) do think this is a piece of crap, please tell me straight up. Then tell me why, and how I can do better. I have seen many artists work in here, and would like to reach at least their level of quality. So I do appreciate your comments.

Thanks again,

D.J.

[Irma]

You are totally right about art ... Also it is true that before you break the rules, you need to know them so then you will know what you did and why...

To my eyes, post processing or photo manipulation are extended tools to enhance what I want people to see, to feel...

In a flower I look for texture, colors, depth, composition a message. And you? What do you like to see in a flower picture?

In this work I really don't know what you wanted us to see and admire.

[guerito]

Hi D.J.,

First, let me say that the following is my personal opinion and probably not very professional, nor artistic. And: No offense meant!

Your picture doesn't work for me. I think it is too blurred overall, even the little things inside (don't know what they are called) look a bit soft, maybe because there is little contrast. These little things are placed properly in the rule of thirds, but they do not really catch my eye. Maybe a local, subtle contrast boost would help here?

Also, I think you are on the brink of posterization with your curves settings. This might work on a sharp picture, but here it even underlines the blurriness. (Posterization means the reduction of colors and hence the loss of gradients.)

Another more general thing is that roses are among the most photographed things on earth. I must have seen thousands of rose pictures, and I don't even like flower photography much. A picture of a rose has to be outstanding to make me go wow. The same goes for sunsets. This is not your fault, anyway, and you can do nothing about it.

So what could you do to improve this? I would try to reshoot the picture with a smaller aperture to get a larger depth of field (dof), to have more overall sharpness. Try different shots and focus on different points, like the edge of a blossom leaf, the insides, and so on. Maybe with diffused light from the side to get some shadows. In the postprocessing, I'd try to add some contrast, but very subtle to leave the magic of the flower intact.

For information on curves, the photoshop help is a good starting point. Also, a google on "photoshop tutorials" yields millions of hits, there should be one that teaches you exactly what you're looking for. I found a tutorial that explains curves here.

HTH,
Guerito

[DJ1234]

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.