Roses

[billy.the.kid43]

Tried this in the Nature forum but maybe it's just not good enough to be commented on. I thought I did a good job but maybe you guys can tell me different.

C&C is welcome. I really don't mind the critique.

 

[Gerty]

I feel if there was more green in the photo from the leaves it would make the white flower more sharp but I am not an photographer far from it Im just saying what I see with my eyes other wise the flowers to me looks good

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

It's just another top down flower shot with processing that makes the image muddy.

 

[billy.the.kid43]

Hey Bitter, I'm glad you chimed in because I like your work. I am trying to get better. Could you please explain your comment though. The only way for me to take this picture was to get a top-down shot. Anything from the sides or other angle would've gotten a bunch of busy background to it (taken in a residential neighborhood). Also, what does muddy mean? Is it over processed, under processed? I do have this in B&W and color versions but I was leaning more towards the sepia. Was this wrong?

Thanks for any input.

 

[lyonsroar]

The rose is white correct? Not yellow...

I think the background is pretty busy as is. The problem is shots like this are pretty interchangeable.

 

[Ron Evers]

Well, I see you converted to sepia but my impression was that it was over exposed & out-of-focus white roses & that the green was desaturated in post processing.