Purple

[512]

...

 

[512]

...

 

[SpeedTrap]

I like the color, but I would like to see it with just a bit more depth of field and not such a centered composition.

 

[512]

thank you, i'll try to be more accurate composing the shot

 

[Derrel]

You are such a tease! It says click for a larger image, but the "larger" image is only like 5 percent larger! You're killin' me!

I agree about the bullseye centering of the main focal point on the flower--your focus is right there on the small, white portion of the blossom, but the effect of depth of field isolation is almost totally lost when the photo is so tiny; it's hard to appreciate shallow depth of field and foreground/background depth of field renderings unless a photo is of pretty good size. On a photo like this,where the main focus point covers perhaps 4 millimeters of real-world space, it's very difficult to get any visual enjoyment when the on-screen representation is less than half the size of the real-life flower...

Some types of photos lose much of their impact ad beauty when seen tiny,and this is the kind of photograph that is not very enjoyable to look at at such a reduced size.

 

[512]

You are such a tease! It says click for a larger image, but the "larger" image is only like 5 percent larger! You're killin' me!

I agree about the bullseye centering of the main focal point on the flower--your focus is right there on the small, white portion of the blossom, but the effect of depth of field isolation is almost totally lost when the photo is so tiny; it's hard to appreciate shallow depth of field and foreground/background depth of field renderings unless a photo is of pretty good size. On a photo like this,where the main focus point covers perhaps 4 millimeters of real-world space, it's very difficult to get any visual enjoyment when the on-screen representation is less than half the size of the real-life flower...

Some types of photos lose much of their impact ad beauty when seen tiny,and this is the kind of photograph that is not very enjoyable to look at at such a reduced size.

with a 1280x1024 the posted image is double the size of the real-life flower,anyway as said so much times i will not post larger images (on my site are max 800x600) due low server space.
enjoy

 

[Agoraphobic]

You are such a tease! It says click for a larger image, but the "larger" image is only like 5 percent larger! You're killin' me!

I agree about the bullseye centering of the main focal point on the flower--your focus is right there on the small, white portion of the blossom, but the effect of depth of field isolation is almost totally lost when the photo is so tiny; it's hard to appreciate shallow depth of field and foreground/background depth of field renderings unless a photo is of pretty good size. On a photo like this,where the main focus point covers perhaps 4 millimeters of real-world space, it's very difficult to get any visual enjoyment when the on-screen representation is less than half the size of the real-life flower...

Some types of photos lose much of their impact ad beauty when seen tiny,and this is the kind of photograph that is not very enjoyable to look at at such a reduced size.

with a 1280x1024 the posted image is double the size of the real-life flower,anyway as said so much times i will not post larger images (on my site are max 800x600) due low server space.
enjoy

Then why not upload to flickr and just embed the image?

 

[512]

as said in other threads I prefer having my photos on my web space

 

[o hey tyler]

as said in other threads I prefer having my photos on my web space

Okay, well lets say I go to your website, and click on the photo of the flower, just like with all your other posts... BAM, I get a full size JPG. One that you could EMBED HERE WITHOUT USING ANY MORE SERVER SPACE AS IT IS ALREADY ON YOUR SERVER.

It's amazing how that works, eh? So there really isn't any reason for you to be linking small representations of photos. You are really just trying to draw traffic to your site. Which is pretty stupid imo imho tbqh.

 

[512]

as said in previous thread i'm not able to embed images from my blog directory, i don't know why. if you have so much to say about my post i'll change forum. Other guys comment the photo, you can't so you choose to comment my embedding method.
i ask to mods to close all my topics.
thank you
bye