Just some quick flower shots. C&C welcomed!

[ShutterbugSarah]

DSC_0951 by SarahSurfr


DSC_0958 by SarahSurfr



Also new logo

 

[PapaMatt]

I really like the first one, really nice. What would we do with out flowers and 4 legged animals , we be left with people, what a sad thought :lmao:

 

[Snakeguy101]

first thing that I see in these shots is "WOW- what an interesting logo". Not sure that is a good thing though.

 

[MK3Brent]

People putting logos/signatures on photos is ridiculous...


I like the first one more than the second.

 

[ShutterbugSarah]

first thing that I see in these shots is "WOW- what an interesting logo". Not sure that is a good thing though.

Yeah I'm just trying it out. Its a little big but I like it.

 

[Zev Steinhardt]

The first shot is nice, but it looks like it was taken in harsh daylight, as evidenced by the shadows on the right side of the flowers. Perhaps some fill light could have cut down on the shadows?

The second one suffers from a very shallow depth of field. Perhaps if the in-focus part was in front or in back, it might have been better. But by having the front and back of the photo out of focus (and the middle in focus) is disconcerting to me.

And, I like the new logo.

Zev Steinhardt

 

[greybeard68 41]

I like the 1st shot, I find the lighting dramatic. The logo however is distracting.

 

[Joel_W]

Out of the two pictures, I like the 1st one better. Not sure I like how you tried to deal with the bright, contrasty light. Seems that you decreased the exposure and brightness, turning what I think is basically a yellow daisy to more a yellowish/orange color. Picture #2 just missed the mark as a macro image of those Daisys. It just seems unbalanced, the colors and lighting are way off.

Like everyone else, you need to get rid of Your watermark. There is no reason to have one on any pictures posted here. The resolution isn't nearly high enough for much of anything other then posting online. It's way over used by many members, and more then not, distracts from the images they're on. I've asked this over and over again, and almost never get a sensible answer as to why they feel it necessary to watermark their pictures. The bottom line is that if anyone really wants to use one of your pictures, they can easily download it, and remove the watermark with many of today's editing programs.

 

[ShutterbugSarah]

This actually is not a daisy but some type of wild sunflower. I have done almost no editing to it and it has a bit of orange color coming out the center naturally.

And yes I understand why I don't need to apply a logo to pictures, especially this one. But I enjoy it, its like an artist signing there name at the bottom of their painting.

 

[Joel_W]

This actually is not a daisy but some type of wild sunflower. I have done almost no editing to it and it has a bit of orange color coming out the center naturally.

And yes I understand why I don't need to apply a logo to pictures, especially this one. But I enjoy it, its like an artist signing there name at the bottom of their painting.

There is still an exposure issue as they look somewhat under exposed. If you shot in RAW, a good place to start is to look at your histogram.

As for you watermark, if you insist on using one, then place a small, inconspicuous one in a lower corner with a less bold color so it just doesn't jump right out at the viewer. It might be fun for you, but it's really annoying to view picture after picture, and seeing one watermark after another that tries to be more creative then the last one. Like I said, they're basically useless as protection against theft. And it's certainly a stretch to say it's like an artist signing his work. Painting are on canvas, these are digital compressed images posted on a photography site. Two entirely different things.

The fun should be in taking the pictures, editing them, then sharing the best of the best via the net.

 

[slackercruster]

Like em! Just make the SK smaller.

 

[Kayak]

The first one is great. The shawdows from the strong light source create interest and sufficient detail remains. The second one does nothing for me personally. The shallow DOF leaves the focus on a non-interesting part of the flower. I think there may be an image in there...wonder what would happen if you moved left just a little to decrease the angle slightly (not straight in front of it) and insreased the DOF to capture a little more detail? Great work!

 

[Snakeguy101]

This is how I imagine it as a signature- much more hidden and no longer the focus of the image...

 

[fotomumma09]

This is how I imagine it as a signature- much more hidden and no longer the focus of the image...

<img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7699"/>

Can I ask what the purpose is of a signature if you are not a pro? Just curious? Like the first one very much. Not crazy in the second one.

 

[Snakeguy101]

This is how I imagine it as a signature- much more hidden and no longer the focus of the image...

<img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachments/nature-wildlife/7699-just-some-quick-flower-shots-c-c-welcomed-6991387546_87e9f9cc2c_b.jpg"/>

Can I ask what the purpose is of a signature if you are not a pro? Just curious? Like the first one very much. Not crazy in the second one.

There isn't one. But if someone insists that they must have it, it should be small and muted.