Motif: Ruffles#2 - same flower, different petal

Exposure is dead on, comp is great, love the new copyright / signature and frame, but . . . since you asked. . . (further hesitation here. . . ) I'd like a hair more dof; the 12:00 and 10:00 tips and the lower left hand corner being soft don't work for me. Maybe I'm being too picky, and it's just personal taste. Man, I hate critiquing when I like someone's work, and I hardly feel qualified. . . OK, I'll shut up now. For what it's worth. (I didn't shut up, did I?)

hey Craig, you do have a good eye, and you're comments are dead-on. This began life as a sharp image which I overlaid with blur, and selectively removed parts [not very convincingly! ). I had mixed feelings about it, and your comments help a great deal. Thanks for the honest appraisal mon!

Gorgeous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lisa

Although I’d agree with the comments already made regarding the DOF/sharpness aspects of this image, I also like to add that I like this shot a lot. Mainly due to the excellent exposure and the really great textures that you have managed to capture. Presentation is very much a taste issue and what suits one another will disagree with. So I overall I say you have taken an excellent image that looks to me as though you have enough detail or latitude if you like to present this image as you will. Really excellent work in my book.

Regards
Matthew

For a rough comparison, here's a crop before the PS work started...

Gorgeous. I can see Craig's point about the tips of the petal. Otherwise this is excellent. Comp, colors, exposure and details are are marvelous. I really like the ruffles.

I'm not sure which I like better - the repost is a pretty neat one too!

At least once or twice a year I will say how my tastes are when it comes to anything shot on a black background.
And, ............. it is only my tastes and opinion!

The only types of shots on a black background that seems to do anything for me are the ones that are shot using some type of side lighting or maybe some rim lighting, something that helps to define any kind of shadow areas, ruffles, veining, textures, etc.
Flat lighting does not seem to do many subjects very much justice on a black background. Again, ......... just my opinion.

This shot does seem to be a little soft, and those marvelous ruffles don't seem to pop very much up against a background that should help to "define" that pop.
Again, I think that it is the lighting in this shot, that with some adjustments could make this one have a more unique type of feeling to it.

Hey, ....................... I'm just picky I guess, and have always thought that it is best to state exactly what my thoughts were in order to possibly help others to think a little differently and possibly to come up with new ideas and ways of shooting! :roll:

Hope this helps!

Once again Michael, you've ferreted out a problem that I'm stuggling with! We are in complete agreement about the need for improvement. Thanks very much for taking the time to share your insights, which are extremely helpful.

The image really looks dead compared to the actual flower. Lighting is certainly the key, and I have been trying simple ways to illuminate the small stuff I've been shooting, and come to the conclusion that I need a larger, bright but diffuse source, and concluded that I need a couple of umbrella's, about 3 inches in diameter. [or maybe I could rent Jorge's studio! ]

This flower is more of a problem than most because of the relief under the ruffle. More direct light defined the edge well, but caused a harsh shadow under the rim because of the relief, so I opted to stay with the flat lighting as presented. I can deal with this issue to an extent in post-processing, but avoided doing so this time since it can introduce some problems of it's own.

Thanks once again for your help!