Critique My Rose?

"So today, I shot one of about a dozen roses that Marianna has been saving to shoot. She's now pissed that I beat her to them. "

That part of your post made me smile....and I am agreeing with you what you wrote there...yes, I am a "little" annoyed to use my "supply" ;)

Anyway...I really like the picture as it is.
I don't think to crop a stem of to make the flower more center would be a good idea.

I think the image is perfect as it is. The picture is need the stem, need that empty space around the flower to "air" and bring the eyes up to the leaves then the petals.

IMO...Don't crop it...
at least not 40%....5-15% maybe if you'd like...but not 40.

I like it the way it is. It would be great for the cover of a "Romance Gone Wrong" novel..

The leaves and stem need more light against the negative space. Something feels inconsistent about it. Could be the way the lower leaf has unbalanced light on its left side.

Mr. Bloom,

The mechanics of the photograph is very professional...very nice

A quick objective glance on theme,

A dying flower....not so indicative of a rose... thorns etc (although the mind now goes there being directed)---stepping even further back---it could be a weird plant or weed with that style of head

Thus if the drama is in the death.....it may be less than evident

Again an admirable display of photographic expertise

Wow this is a great image Murray! I can see why she is sorry you beat her to it! Personally I like the long stem and would not crop it. The stem has so much detail and is so integral to the flower ...I would if anything make it longer...as in a long stemmed rose. Whatever you do with this it is a fantastic photograph.

Murray... this is of course just a personal view not a critique.. I don't care for the image. While I can see someone wanting something like that in a modern setting it is just not something I would ever consider buying. Maybe Morticia Addams would like it ;O) just kidding..

I know there are probably metaphors associated with the image and that has appeal to some.

I do think it is very well photographed. I am not sure if I like the lack of contrast between the leave and the background though. That would be the only critique. Just know that is coming from an extremely unprofessional photographer ;O)

bob

How about a monochrome version? Maybe not b&w, that would be too much contrast.

Keep the stem

And take it out of the shadows, along with the leaf..

,As I see it now, there is a "Insect" quality to this beautiful photograph..(maybe,that's because I see bugs in everything)

I sort of like the image - except for the caricature of the face - but the coloring and the balance of light and dark are really nice.

good photo. the light is really strong on the flower. i think if it were me i would play around with adding just the tiniest bit of digital sunlight on the leaves for balance.

I wouldn't crop it shorter, but I would dodge the leaves just a bit to differentiate from the background.

Wow! So many responses so quickly.

Sweetheart, you snooze, you lose.

Larry, it looks like popular opinion is against cropping the stem. That comes as a surprise to me. Thanks.

Tony, I lit the thing specifically to get that squiggly, thorny edge on the lower leaf, and now you want me to change it? Just kidding. I intended the lower leaf to contrast with the more pristine one above it, and its brighter shape to provide counterpoint against the illuminated flower. You do have me thinking for the next ones, though.

Mo, I understand about the atypical view. My vision for one of the next shots is more rose-like. Death, while implied, is not paramount. Again, wait, one of the next will clearly signify death, if it works out. Thanks for the technical compliment. If nothing else, I'm technical.

Thanks, Val. Glad you like it.

Bob, I don't create work for other peoples' walls. Of course, I don't mind selling the occasional print. Points noted.

Philip I'm not sure about 'squashing' the image. However, the original shot had more room on the sides. Both Marianna and I thought it looked better cropped narrow because of the subject's natural aspect ratio. I might try your suggestion, though.

I never thought of monochrome, Arianna. I might give it a spin in something close to dark sepia.

Roy, I was aware of the 'face,' but it doesn't bother me. Tends to humanize the flower. Just kidding.

I'd thought of that, too, Kim. I just didn't want to warm things up too much. You could be right, though.

Louise, I already brightened up the dark leaf a lot. More needed, ya think?

Roger, you and some others want the leaves and stem brighter. The balance of light was a deliberate choice. Maybe I got it wrong.

For anyone who cares, the image was shot with three studio flash units, including a low-deflection strobe on a boom above the rose.

"My vision for one of the next shots is more rose-like."

Next shots... next shots????? ...hmmmm..you have to be joking...... they are my flowers, it took me several weeks to dry them out, and fight for their rights not to be tossed in the trush ;)

I like it as is as well, Murray - no cropping. I especially like the lighting on the leaves.

Wow Murray I think this is marvelous. Don't crop. As far as bringing the leaf out of the shadow a bit.......you can try it and see what you think. However I love it the way it is. Excellent!

Well, there ya go, Marianna - get your camera out quick! LOL

Mary...it's too late. I was too busy setting up my book project.... I should just post my link here, for revenge ;)

He took the glory for all my hard work to make them nice and dead.

LOL, well, look at it this way. You did the set-up work. If Murray sells the image, tell him you want a percentage ;-).

Thanks Mary, I will keep in mind ;)

Murray, I don't dislike the squiggly. I think if it were just that it would be fine but the light "cheats" onto part of the leaf near it and detracts from that "Lightning" like feature of the squiggly. Maybe just darken that small triangular area and I will give an imprimatur.

I would do it in black and white. I have several rose images in black and white and they are very popular.

Tony, removing that bright patch is already in the plan. It's been bothering me ever since I posted the pic.

Another vote for monochrome, Larry. I generally don't like B&W conversions, even with film emulating software. But I might just give it a shot. Nice flower, insect and bird gallery, btw.

Sweetie, I really like "nice and dead." ;-D

I have never been a fan of "portrait" mode or tall, lean images. However, this one really works for me. I like it - a lot.

~ Bill

Now that you have all the crop opinions, it would be interesting to upload it the way it is and another with it cropped and run a test to see which one the buyers pick.

That said, put me in the do not crop crowd. It looks incomplete when I cropped it. Maybe if had not see the full version it wouldn't but that's too late now.

I lightened it just a tad also to bring out the veins in the first leaf. But it may not need it all, it could be my AriMac, I don't think this screen has been calibrated.

A thorn or two on the stem would have nice. Did you remove them or were they never there?

As for the face, I wasn't going to say anything, but don't be surprised if my ex-wife demands royalties, especially if this becomes worth several million. I could testify that it look exactly like href.

This discussion has gotten a lot more complicated than it needs to be. Regarding matting, I print and mat my own images. The mat bevels come within 1/16" of the image edges. I allow that overlap to allow for thermal expansion. The prints themselves are attached to the backing board with a strip of photo tape along the upper edge, letting gravity keep them in place when hung.

Marianna will get her chance. I eagerly anticipate her images. We have vastly different styles. I'm a technical type, and use all the wizardry at my disposal to produce the 'perfect' image; while she's a great visual story teller. I've told her often that I wish I had her gift for visual narrative. I wouldn't be surprised if her images are more engaging than my own in that respect. I can't wait to see them.

In the meantime, I'm going to shoot a couple more pictures of the dead roses and perform some 'cleanup' on the shot at the top of the thread, while incorporating some of your suggestions.

@Murrary, now that you have shown us all the area, you do not see the curved stem in the photo at top and what you do have which I was correct is the sepal at the what appears the top of the rose, and though you did not photo shop, if you turn your image above right side up you would have a normal rose, and the lighting in the photo above appears to be brown not yellow at least not on my computer it looks like a dried rose.....yet in your photo below looks yellow.....

So Miranna and Melissa I was not mistaken as you thought I was, the image as I saw it did have the sepal at the top and the only reason it is why because the stem below the sepal bent, So I am correct the rose bent downwards not the petals of the flower but the rose itself....thank you Murray for posting. so the the rose is bent downwards which would make an illusion it was not right side up.....and because of the bent stem and the rose appearing upside down, is why this image would look photo shop in the first place...I am afraid I am correct in this.....I do not need my wrist slapped or my intelligence insulted by you or anyone on this site......thank you IMO Have a great weekend one and all.

Murray have you tried a close up showing the curved stem, ...since you do not see the curved stem in your original photo this is what gives the photo the illusion it was turned upside down, IMO you need to show the curved stem or part of it......


Murray when I view the very top photo up above, the rose and the sepal appear both the same, yet in the bottom the sepal appears green and the rose appears a yellow....do you think that was caused because its a macro shot above

Good night and good luck with your project Murray.....try sepia tone as I mentioned above, but then with a yellow would that enhance the sepia or take it away. You are using film or digital for this image..

Michael, not to be argumentative, but everyone seemed to understand that the rose flower had toppled due to gravity. You, on the other hand, assumed that I had inverted it in Photoshop, which was untrue.

The colors are dead on. I'm sitting next to a vase of a dozen dead roses and none of their sepals are green. If anything, there's a greenish tinge toward the tips, but they're very similar in color to the petals, perhaps a bit more toward a warm brown. Being a macro shot does not change the color. Actually, it's not a macro at all, just a close-up. It was, however, shot with a macro lens. Confused yet?

lol! I give up....wait, not quite yet. @ Michael, I think you got stuck on a visual of what a 'properly' dried rose is supposed to look like. You've likely never just let flowers die in their vase. I promise that is exactly what the sepal and the rose does after plain ole gravity takes over and the weight of the rose just falls down resulting in the sepal being on 'top' visually.

Here's a revised version of the image, somewhat changed from the original by incorporating some of this thread's suggestions:

"Her head bowed low, gracefully accepting le trépas"

Murray, I've enjoyed the purpose of this thread, and learned so much in the process. (but, I just don't much like the subject, itself, poor thing).

I like it. Looking forward to seeing what Marianna does too 'cause I LOVE her stuff!

So do I. It really sucks being the second best artist in the house. As Vince Lombardi once said, "Second place is first loser."

I'm glad you've enjoyed the thread, Viv. Unfortunately, all living things die eventually. Cut flowers seem particularly susceptible.

I think the height is good as is perhaps imho just a tiny lift in light on the top leaf but I really like the slap in the middle composition

I think it's great. ;)

Now that I have awaken from a good nights sleep knowing I was correct in making my comment,....and no one got stuck on nothing,....someone mentioned turn it around, read the thread,....so of course I went back and viewed it upside down,.....and made my comment realizing the sepal was on top and because I said that its looks as if i ruffled some ginny feathers lol, lol, lol, the point is Murray asked so get over it and accept it.....this is a very harsh and unpleasant to view, when a flower droops dead or wilted there is beauty there, not in this photo.....I must depart this discussion lol, and pack for my cruise, bon voyage.....good luck with future attempts....I got nightmares from looking at that image...

i dont like the 12 o clock noon light setting, reminds me too much of artefacts in a museum, id go with something more organic lightning, 2 or 3 lights, with one being back lighting, but if its just one light you wanna work with you might try a 6 o clock light setting, just the opposite side youve done, it will bring out more drama, tho re aranging the shadows differently, so im not sure if thats going to be the picture you wanted, but anyways thats what i would try.

Michael, it's a lot easier to just admit you were mistaken about the orientation of the flower than to try to explain why you thought it was.

Murray, I find your set up image much more interesting than the flower picture.

I'd like to thank everyone for their comments, positive or not, constructive and otherwise. I have incorporated some of your ideas in the picture above (10 posts back). If you'd like to see more images on this subject, stay tuned . . .

Mario, no one was mistaken about the orientation of the flower and I voiced my opinion because I was correct, and Murray who opened the critique has to accept a good or bad critique when asking for one. It remarks such as yourself and others which will always be and remain the same and how certain individuals are treated here on Fine Art America in the discussion rooms, they are worse than aol chat room,,,,lol, IMO... Everyone have a great weekend. Hugs and Kisses.

Sorry Michael, it's not important, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion and critique about the image, but I really don't understand your argument regarding the orientation of the flower and how you could think your correct, after seeing the flower in the set up image. Maybe I'm missing some thing here?

Michael was correct about the orientation of the flower, but not the reason. I still don't know why he apparently became so upset because the rose was upside down, when its position was natural in death.

However, none of this is important enough to be upset about. Half an hour ago, a little girl (8) was hit by a car outside my house. She ran a stop sign and was knocked off her bike, but now appears more or less okay. Peace, everyone.

The harsh lighting states the reality, impending and finality of death.
Soften the ambiance and it will translate it into a peaceful, natural, transition . A journey we will all take. IMo

I am glad the girl is alright Murray.

You've got it, Melissa. Generally, my pictures are, first and foremost, about reality. I tend not to romanticize what I see. Thanks for your comment.

As a picture framer that has probably framed a few thousand photographs, I could frame that photo with NO mat sitting on top of it at all.

I would design a double or triple mat with multiply grooves with at least 2 inches of negative space all the way around the entire print. The matting would be at leas another 2 1/2 to 3 inches. I would mount that on black core, acid free foam board and float it in a shallow shadow box just deep enough to make sure the glass did not touch the print. It would be an award winning photo and frame design. Done it several time.

Hanging on the wall as soon as you entered the room that rose would reach out, grab you by the throat and yank you access the floor until you were nose to rose with it. It would demand your attention and get it!

So don't worry about the mat sitting on the paper.

If the framer you are using can't do that, you need a new framer.

About 30 minutes ago I almost hit a man on a bicycle. For some reason he decided to leisurely cross left on the road just past an intersection that I was going through at 40mph with a light sprinkling rain, just enough for the pavement to be wet. He and me are lucky my tires braked that well on damp pavement. I had a few feet of sliding before I hit a complete stop. Because he was pedaling so slow, he hadn't even crossed my lane yet. Very close call.

I do it the easiest way possible, Floyd. I use a five foot Logan mat cutter, and Nielsen frames. Never claimed to be a framer.

Must be bicycle versus car day, Melissa. Good that you missed him.

...the length of the stem is fine...overall spacial harmony.

Thanks, Enver. I've decided to go with the majority regarding the crop. Sometimes, first impressions are the best.