[Tonytee]

This time, no rambling.

To be honest, Tony, there is more "POP" in this version, esp because of the greater clarity of detail in the centre. Not being savvy with how the software works, I am going to ask what may be a stupid question: is there any way that centre clarity could have been achieved without lightening up the rest of the rose? Also, in this version, all the empty space is on the right: in the original, it was on the left. Without being up with all the rules of composition, nonetheless this version seems a little "out of balance".

But I do like the extra detail in the centre: it seems to bring the rose "alive". The original was a little dead to me.

I am almost totally ignorant of accepted theories of art, composition etc: this is just my reaction to both versions. But again, how subjective is all this, regardless of who is judging? "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

I do not know, perhaps it would be prudent to end this thread here and call it good. Thnx,

TT

[robgski]

I don't think it's a question of what's acceptable or not.

I call the original image "paintinglike" , soft but in focus but with enough detail that you can see it's a red rose with many petals, including one folded over in the center almost like a winking or hooded eye. Good on you for getting some rich colors, including the green stem. Black background makes the colors stand out without the need for additional illumination. The negative space on the left of the frame is better than a square crop or portrait would have presented.

If that is what you saw, and what you wanted to present, what's the dispute?

[Tonytee]

I call the original image "paintinglike" , soft but in focus but with enough detail that you can see it's a red rose with many petals, including one folded over in the center almost like a winking or hooded eye. Good on you for getting some rich colors, including the green stem. Black background makes the colors stand out without the need for additional illumination. The negative space on the left of the frame is better than a square crop or portrait would have presented.

If that is what you saw, and what you wanted to present, what's the dispute?

Mr. Robski, thank you very much for your encouraging words. The dispute wasn't necessarily on this Forum, but on others where the response was that my image, being

underexposed lacked detail and came across as being flat. My goal was to present the flower as I saw it as a soft, fragrant and very appealing subject to leave in its most

natural state. Many thanks,

TT

[clackers]

I would like very much to get rid of Photo Editor 10, but there is no way. Believe me I have tried and being it is a part of Windows 10, I am stuck with it. It has become very

troublesome the past six months or so and try as I may to get help from Microsoft, no deal. I am considering getting a new system soon and have nothing to do with Windows 10 and Microsoft.

Thanks again for your suggestions.

TT

Well, Photo Editor 10 is *not* part of Windows 10, it is an additional, optional app you can download, I think it's not the reason your pics aren't as sharp or getting the impact you want.

Anyway, I think there are improvements you can make with your shooting, nothing to do with software.

So the offer still stands, Tony, you shoot as described above, get the RAW to me, and I'm happy to make suggestions on your technique. You do seem to be, for a couple of years now, a bit like a hamster running on a wheel, not getting any further! The good news is that if we can work out what's going on, it can be improved for no dollars and cents, just time spent practicing.

And I will do a basic edit for you in Lightroom.

[Rexlawyer]

As someone who learnt the basics (and I mean basics)about the relationships between ASA rating, shutter speed, aperture and DOF way back in the 1970s with first a Pentax K2 and then an ME, I have found reading this thread a fascinating experience. Getting a picture sharp was enough to please me. If I managed occasionally to get a good candid portrait, or great composition (of whatever subject) it was usually by luck, and as like or not I may have even been totally oblivious of why such "luck" shots stood out from all my others.

I gave up photography as a hobby in the early 1980s and only came back to (the now digital) photographic world in October 2018 with the purchase of a 2nd hand K50 and the only modern lens the Pentax 18-55mm kit lens that came with the K50. I used that, and my old collection of film era Pentax M lenses, and tried to get back into some level of competence (at least in trying to get a sharp picture!!). In June this year I went bananas budget-wise and bought a brand new KP, along with 3 modern lenses - the PLM version of the 55-300mm zoom, the 16-85mm, and the 100mm F2.8 Macro.


Like the poster, flowers as subjects has become a major part of my photographic interest, and (perhaps not like TT) I blundered my way from one shot to the next, occasionally remembering to check to see what aperture or shutter speed I was using. I have recently tried TAV mode, in an effort to get a suitable shutter speed (for hand-held shots) together with an aperture that might get me whatever depth of field i thought the shot needed, and let the camera set the ISO. Needless to say, inattention led to some shots being taken with ridiculously high ISO (even for the KP) for subjects in moderate to deep shade.

But to now get to the point.

First, comments about uv filters (I think first by Photolady95) jolted me: one of the first things I did with my new purchases was to buy UV filters and put them on each of my 3 highly prized new lenses, and, of course, left them on regardless of the conditions in which I was shooting, or what I was shooting. Now I learn I should take them off!!!

Second: TT, your description of how much effort, and how many attempts, you made to get a satisfying result - first with the flash, then without, then with different shutter speeds ....Well, this also jolted me, causing me to try and recall how many times I put that much effort into any of my own shots. Not very many, I am ashamed to say. I am lazy!!! To the point where the effort of changing to a more appropriate lens, or getting the tripod out - nah, lets just take a couple of shots and move on.!!! (Maybe it's the Aussie in me coming out - "She'll be right, mate!".

MarkJerling: Sir, that photograph you put into this thread - lovely!! Sharp, nice capture of the lighting between well- lit and shaded areas of the flower, nothing in the background to distract, and clever background of deep gold from one side of the photograph to deep black on the other - beautiful. Was that how it was, or was that PP. Whatever, it works!! And then the EXIF tells me it was shot with an ISO as high as 3200!! And TT was concerned about bumping the ISO up to 400! (and as mentioned here earlier in this ramble I confessed to leaving the ISO to the camera when experimenting in TAV, and not even occasionally checking the ISO the camera gave me!)

Clackers: loved the homework assignment - indoors (no wind to cause subject movement while shooting at low shutter speed, as you say), ambient vs direct light. Of course, that jar better be very clean and clear. And yes, as per your subsequent post, I put only the original DNG files of my pics onto my OneDrive account, whether to just share with friends and family, or as a reference comparison to any cropped JPEGS i sometimes put into the PF threads.


TT, and everyone else: I have not even reached the status of Novice with regard to photo editing software. I have Irfanview, Paint.Net, and of course the built-in Windows Photo app, but never done more than crop, or convert to jpeg and resize for posting into PF. (cannot justify the expense of the likes of Lightroom and photoshop or any of the other programs which I have seen mentioned throghout the PF).

Comments on Irfanview, Paint.net??


Of course, with my recently purchased KP came a disk with Silkypics, which I haven't even got around to installing - did I mention my main prob: I am LAZY!!


The artistry and technical skills that some people achieve with any of these programs is just black magic to me: I recall being impressed with what Drinkkeri did in this thread:
How could this be improved - PentaxForums.com

To get to the main point:

TT: for what it is worth, coming from a person with very poorly developed technical skills of his own, and even less endowed with the level of knowledge and expertise of most of the other posters here, my reaction to the subject in question was: nice pic of a nice red rose contrasted with a black background. You know - nice ? It doesn't POP, though. For me. I know: a totally non-technical, and unhelpful comment. Why (it doesn't POP), I will leave to all the other contributors here to try to explain or guess. I am very able to say when some pics I come across in this remarkable forum POP for me: not remotely qualified to say why, or how the POP could have been achieved.

On the other hand, I chased up a very small number of the many other photos you have posted in this forum, and WOW! In just the small number I looked at, I loved. eg "Nice, Bright and..", and "Nice...".

Looking back, and before actually submitting this post, I realise I have totally hijacked this thread, and wondered if I should just abort it. But after giving it so much time, I had to press the "Submit Reply" button - so hope you all forgive me!!

But I have been alternately surprised, jolted, but mostly inspired to put more concentration and effort into my own photo-shooting by reading this thread - so thank you all. And long live Pentax Forums!!

I felt like I was reading my own post. Started in photography back in the day with my ME Super and cycled back in, finally wit a used Kr last year as well. I departed in the early 90’s frustrated by the expense of film development. I know exactly what you mean by luck factor. I’d shoot a roll of 36 and felt lucky to get maybe one good shot. That of course led to convincing myself that maybe two or three more were keepers. A relatively more expensive hobby back then. Oh! Try Affinity for PP. It’s $50 one time to purchase instead of leasing monthly.

---------- Post added 08-18-19 at 07:18 PM ----------

I call the original image "paintinglike" , soft but in focus but with enough detail that you can see it's a red rose with many petals, including one folded over in the center almost like a winking or hooded eye. Good on you for getting some rich colors, including the green stem. Black background makes the colors stand out without the need for additional illumination. The negative space on the left of the frame is better than a square crop or portrait would have presented.

If that is what you saw, and what you wanted to present, what's the dispute?

I’m just a low level hobbyist, but I ditto your comments. I liked the original because it invoked a feeling of being shot at night, and it turns out it was. It gives a sense of leaning over in the darkness to peer closely at the beauty of the rose.

[Tonytee]

Well, Photo Editor 10 is *not* part of Windows 10, it is an additional, optional app you can download, I think it's not the reason your pics aren't as sharp or getting the impact you want.

Anyway, I think there are improvements you can make with your shooting, nothing to do with software.

So the offer still stands, Tony, you shoot as described above, get the RAW to me, and I'm happy to make suggestions on your technique. You do seem to be, for a couple of years now, a bit like a hamster running on a wheel, not getting any further! The good news is that if we can work out what's going on, it can be improved for no dollars and cents, just time spent practicing.

And I will do a basic edit for you in Lightroom.

Clackers, thanks very much for your feedback. It is greatly appreciated. I feel I have made a mistake in starting this thread as all I was searching for was an answer to my

question, "Is this photograph acceptable as it is presented?". There have been many suggestions here in PF by Photolady95,eaglem and many others that causing an image

to be underexposed to a degree will result in no blown out reds, no sharpening artifacts, but will result (with flowers) in a much nicer, softer, less dried out appearance.

To me, red roses represent emotions, i.e,. love, romance, endearment to a paramour for example. So at this point I will end my participation in this thread and offer my

sincerest, deepest appreciation to all for the valued contributions.

Best Regards,

TT

[clackers]

Clackers, thanks very much for your feedback. It is greatly appreciated. I feel I have made a mistake in starting this thread as all I was searching for was an answer to my

question, "Is this photograph acceptable as it is presented?". There have been many suggestions here in PF by Photolady95,eaglem and many others that causing an image

to be underexposed to a degree will result in no blown out reds, no sharpening artifacts, but will result (with flowers) in a much nicer, softer, less dried out appearance.

You're missing the second half, TT, which is to then raise the exposure selectively in postprocessing until it looks natural and good. The final product shouldn't be underexposed, it shouldn't be dark, that was just during the capture process.

IMHO, I think you're going to wrestle with photographing beautiful red roses (and beautiful red sweaters on people) until someone else helps you make some conceptual breakthroughs, and your methods change.

Mine do, all the time, as a result of looking at other people's pictures and hearing them talk or reading about how they were made.

If you love flowers enough to take even better pictures of them, I'm willing to assist, get in touch. Mentorship in the real world is very expensive, you're lucky you're well-liked and have your fellow forum members to draw on.

[SSGGeezer]

If you love flowers enough to take even better pictures of them, I'm willing to assist, get in touch. Mentorship in the real world is very expensive, you're lucky you're well-liked and have your fellow forum members to draw on.

What he said! ^^^^

And Darktable is a decent program for RAW editing and there are multiple series' of youtube videos on using it, and best of all, it is Free!

[madphys]

The photo lacks light... It is "flat" looking because of the lighting. There are times, when natural light cannot provide that "interesting" look, the pop of details, the interplay of highlight and shadow. In such cases you turn to artificial lighting - like a flash with or without light modifiers, the only thing is - you have to get it off the camera (via wireless trigger or a curly cord).
If what I am saying doesn't make sense to you, take a look at

You Tube

You Tube

, and what effort he puts in, to stage his mushroom photos.

Also - you could bring a mister bottle with you... Sometimes might be useful.