Black-eyed Susans


TPF Noob!
Jul 5, 2013
Reaction score
United States
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I am fairly new to this, but I came across a nice field of black-eyed susans the other day, and here are a few of the products. Any suggestions or comments appreciated. Thank you.


  • $9277337444_a2771c76cd_b.jpg
    89.2 KB · Views: 95
  • $9273892651_53a2ffa41a_b.jpg
    311.3 KB · Views: 82
  • $9276672864_a95c10f5f1_b.jpg
    106.6 KB · Views: 97
  • $9276655636_3e110e4285_b.jpg
    310.4 KB · Views: 83
Not bad. Of the closer ones, the first is better, but I'd center it. I know many photographers will tell you not to center the subject, and with something symmetric it's usually not that effective. However, I'd prefer it to pushing the flower against the side of the frame with nothing on the other side, which just makes it unbalanced. According to most books on composition in art, lack of balance is the biggest sin, and centering usually doesn't even make the list.

The last is the better of the longer shots because the flowers more nearly fill the frame. I'd prefer not to have the frame cut into any of the flowers, but that's very difficult to do and you have to balance that against getting the composition you want. It might have been better to lower the camera just a bit to get more of the flowers along the lower edge, but this works for me.
I really like the first one. I like how you put the flower right to one side (but the stalk is still visable) and left some nice out of focus green empty space. I can see what Ken is saying though. Part of me sees it as being a great pic for an add/website/brochure (with text/ a message over the out of focus space).
Thanks for the great comments. I also worry about having things so asymmetrical and wonder if the suggestion to push things to the sides is not overused. Actually, in the original it was more centered, but there were a couple of other flowers in the background that seemed distracting.

The issue about the edge of the frame is really something I need to pay more attention to. It was too late to lower the camera as you suggest, but I did try cropping out the bottom row, which I think helped. Thanks, again.


  • $DSC_1370b2.jpg
    302.1 KB · Views: 86
Welcome to TPF.


Here's some suggestions for one of your photos.
1. The color (white balance) is off -- too blue. I corrected it.
2. Your photos are leaning flat (low contrast). I bumped up the contrast.
3. I got a little carried away and removed what to me seemed distractions.
4. I darkened the background to bring more attention to the flower.

I noticed that your photos are posted without an embedded ICC profile. Somewhere in the process from camera to web posting the profile got stripped off. Your camera embedded the profile and most likely the software you used to re-size the photo is the culprit. If you give us details about what you're doing we can help. Your photos will be more consistently seen to others as you see them if you can keep that profile in place.

Thank you, Joe. Sorry, am not familiar with ICC profile. Is that EXIF?
Thank you, Joe. Sorry, am not familiar with ICC profile. Is that EXIF?

One of the EXIF tags is color space. In your photos the value listed is untagged. The embedded ICC profile identifies the photo's color space. Your photos don't have an assigned color space. They did when they came from your camera. Your camera has a setting for color space and you likely have two or three choices if you're saving JPEG files. The default should be sRGB and that's what you want to use. If you're saving raw files with your camera then those raw files have to be converted to be saved as RGB JPEG files and again no raw conversion software will do that without assigning the color space. Which is to say that it's guaranteed that your photos started life with a color space assignment.

The reason for the color space in the first place is this:


Those two squares have the exact same RGB numerical values. By the numbers they're the exact same color. The assigned color space causes the same numbers to decode to different colors. In other words the RGB values are soft and the color space assignment is necessary to determine specifically what colors to display. In the case of your photos, since the color space assignment is missing the colors in your photos are undefined. The practical result is that people out here on the Internet are less likely to see the color in your photos accurately or as you saw them.

So we know your photos started life with a color space, the culprit that removed the color space was software somewhere in the chain from your camera to your posted photo. What software did you use and what software steps did you take to post the photos?

Sorry if that's pretty technical stuff -- not your biggest concern if you're just getting started, but eventually something you'll want to deal with.

I believe this is also very important if you ever choose to print your pictures. My printer has to match lightroom or it will print them the wrong shade. It took me 20 sheets of photo paper to figure that out. It wasn't a shining moment for me.... :)
Ok, this is a mystery to me. When I look at these same pictures in flickr, the color space has a value of sRGB. Is it possible that got lost between flickr and the forum?
You're right. Not my most immediate concern, but something to know for sure. I've tried to stay away from doing much post-processing for now, on the theory that I should learn to strive for the right shot rather than say "I can always fix it in PhotoShop." One day, I'll get there too. Thanks again for the comments. It's great to get feedback such as this.
I really love black-eyed susans so I like all four photos. But the first one is my absolute favorite because the flower is slightly off-center, which makes it more interesting.
Ok, this is a mystery to me. When I look at these same pictures in flickr, the color space has a value of sRGB. Is it possible that got lost between flickr and the forum?

Very possible and I'd say likely. The photos here are 1024 pixels wide (a standard size). The originals on Flickr are probably larger and the forum software likely forced a re-size and in the process dumped the ICC profile. A lot of "internet" software is known to do this. Software specifically designed to edit and manage photos behaves properly but a lot of lesser grade software will do this type of thing. The solution is to do the re-sizing yourself before uploading them.


Most reactions