Flowers...of some sort...

[RxForB3]

I stopped to photo the flowers. I think they turned out well. Any thoughts?

1.


032 by RxForB3, on Flickr

2.


027 by RxForB3, on Flickr

3.


014 by RxForB3, on Flickr

 

[tailofspence]

I really like the 2nd one. I find that lots of people tend to photograph flowers a little bit too close (maybe to practice their macro skills?), but honestly I think some distance provides context!

 

[RxForB3]

I agree, but photographing close is just so much fun. I think, though, that I wish the depth of field on 2 was less. But then again, that would not provide the context as wool, as you suggested...

 

[JPC36]

This flower is too great for macro, maybe 50 MM use?

 

[RxForB3]

Not quite sure what you mean, JPC36. Are you asking if I used a 50mm? Or suggesting that I use one?

 

[cgipson1]

#1 and #3 are both underexposed, with questionable focus / dof.

#2 Exposure is pretty much ok, but it lacks contrast and needs a bit of sharpening. Nice that you didn't center it.. but a crop would help to get rid of some of the dead space around it.

 

[baturn]

Rhododendron

 

[killbill]

I like the second one too!

 

[RxForB3]

Baturn, thanks for telling me what they are! I really need to work on learning my plants and animals.

Cgipson1, thank you very much for the critique! One of these days I'll be better at recognizing underxposed elements, but it takes practice like anything else, I suppose. If you don't mind, could you give one of my other threads some critique? It was passed over, it seems, but I'd be interested in some suggestions...

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/macro-photography/277185-life-log.html

I think maybe all three are underexposed. None have been post processed yet. Particularly, which composition do you prefer best between numbers 2 and 3 in regards to the background and depth of field?