Seduce - A rose for the ladies

[Fangman]

The six foot rose hedge in front of our Victorian farm house - now getting battered by the rain. Seduce or Elina rose.

 

[Jaemie]

#1: Too dark and OOF

#2: Nice. A little more exposure on the flower, perhaps. Sky is beautiful but a bit overwhelming.

The others seem like nice snaps. Pretty house!

 

[Fangman]

Thanks for commenting - the focus on the first is crisp on the unfurling petal (Just checked on the 100% 54 meg original) and the darkness is the wall and foliage behind - not from Lightroom this time. I think we are getting more rain than even Seattle at the moment having recently had a hosepipe ban from a very dry winter!

 

[Kerbouchard]

Thanks for commenting - the focus on the first is crisp on the unfurling petal (Just checked on the 100% 54 meg original) and the darkness is the wall and foliage behind - not from Lightroom this time. I think we are getting more rain than even Seattle at the moment having recently had a hosepipe ban from a very dry winter!

Perhaps on the 54 meg original, #1 is crisp, but what you posted on this forum is not. It is too dark and it is out of focus. #2 is pretty good but would be better if you had used a reflector to bring in some fill to the flower to help balance out the sky. Three and four are snapshots.

 

[Ron Evers]

I find #1 soft but not objectionable as it presents a quiet mood. Any more exposure would cause the existing highlights to blow out.

 

[Kerbouchard]

I find #1 soft but not objectionable as it presents a quiet mood. Any more exposure would cause the existing highlights to blow out.

If you take a look at the histogram, it is a long way from blowing out, and it is also obviously underexposed.

 

[Fangman]

I am glad these get you going - but as this forum states, these were taken "on the quick at the request of "the boss" to send to a friend. Just a quick crop and posted to show how they are surviving the weather. A quick dash out between cloudbursts and not a tripod, wind screen, mist spray or reflector in sight! Snapshots were all that were required to keep the boss happy - hence not posted in critique forum. Thanks to you all for taking the time out to post . . . Yes, I do use the above equipment if asked to provide a flower illustration.

 

[Kerbouchard]

I am glad these get you going - but as this forum states, these were taken "on the quick at the request of "the boss" to send to a friend. Just a quick crop and posted to show how they are surviving the weather. A quick dash out between cloudbursts and not a tripod, wind screen, mist spray or reflector in sight! Snapshots were all that were required to keep the boss happy - hence not posted in critique forum. Thanks to you all for taking the time out to post . . . Yes, I do use the above equipment if asked to provide a flower illustration.

My apologies. Most of us use the New Posts feature of this forum and don't even glance at the sub-forum it was posted in. If I would have paid attention and saw that it was in the 'just for fun' category, I would not have commented.

I assumed your focus was on photography and not on a snapshot showing how the roses held up during a storm.

Again, my apologies for assuming that pictures you posted at a photography forum were related to photography. Perhaps, a rose forum would be more interested in how they held up during the storm and would likely not critique the actual photos?

 

[Ron Evers]

I find #1 soft but not objectionable as it presents a quiet mood. Any more exposure would cause the existing highlights to blow out.

If you take a look at the histogram, it is a long way from blowing out, and it is also obviously underexposed.

Well, I am seeing a loss of detail in the brightest areas now.

 

[Kerbouchard]

I find #1 soft but not objectionable as it presents a quiet mood. Any more exposure would cause the existing highlights to blow out.

If you take a look at the histogram, it is a long way from blowing out, and it is also obviously underexposed.

Well, I am seeing a loss of detail in the brightest areas now.

Yes, but a loss of detail in the brightest areas aren't always based on exposure. Sometimes it is focus or lighting. In this case it was focus. The OP stated he focused on the closest petal. Irregardless of the exposure, there wouldn't be detail in the brightest areas.

Also, in this case, there is no point in further discussion since the OP said these weren't for critique, but just snapshots to show how the flowers held up during a storm.