Lone Flower

[SoCal69]

This was taken with a Canon S20. Any thoughts in general and on how to improve it in post processing? I know the petals are overexposed, but I actually like that result (as unintended as it was). I tried blurring the background, but it seemed to look better with the sharper background. All comments and critiques welcome and appreciated.

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=777958&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

[pappy]

I like it Chuck. There is tremendous contrast and colour here and my eyes are drawn straight into the centre of the flower.

Well done.

regards,
Peter

[SoCal69]

Thanks Peter. I also like it a lot and was very surprised it came out as it did since I used my old S20. I may have to go back and try reshooting with the 10D. I'm not sure though whether I should leave this as is or whether some enhancements might be appropriate.

[Conk]

I hope you don't mind but I did a little touching up to the image to try and get the flower to stand out more.
I put the image in Knockout and removed the flower. I put the original through Neatimage, removed the noise and added a gussi blur. I then added unsharp mask to the flower and pasted it over the original. I then adjusted the contrast slightly darkening the center of the flower a touch.
Here is the link to the full size and my footnote claiming no ownership to the image.
http://www.pbase.com/image/19035640/original
http://image.pbase.com/u30/conk/large/19035640.daisy2.jpg

[SoCal69]

I don't mind at all Conk. I looked at your result and it looks nice. I like the only slightly blurred background, although it is not significantly different from the original and doesn't make a real difference in the overall image (to my amateur eyes anyway). I have never used NeatImage, but I know many here are fans of it and like the kind of soft halo(?) effect it gives. I'm not a big fan of that effect myself, but it seems to work well here with the foliage, and I think improves the overall image. Thanks for your efforts! You did a really nice job on it.

[Leighow]

Here is another approach:

1: I felt that the leaves were present in excess, so I cropped.
2: the leaves were too light, so I darkened the entire shot
3: I Lasso'ed the leaves but excluded the entire flower and blurred
4: I sharpened the flower -- especially the central blue.

http://members.rogers.com/hleigh/BLUE.jpg

HOWIE

[Conk]

Howies version is great. My version suffered degrading. The flower was a lot sharper than that. Even your version's flower is sharper than mine. Oh well. That's jpg for ya. :(

[SoCal69]

Howie:

Looks great also! Actually, your points were all ones I had considered before posting:
1) I agree with your crop for visual asthetics. I didn't crop it because I thought the right side should be left there for possible text or other additions.

2) My original greenery was actually darker, and I had brightened it up some (I thought it made the photo more interesting).

3) I tried several degrees of blurring from low to high. I didn't like the high level blurs, and with less blurring, it didn't seem a significant difference from the original. Overall though, the more versions I am seeing, the more I agree with a light blur of the background.

4) I had already sharpened the flower slightly (although I don't remember if that was done to the posted original or after it was posted). LOL they say memory is the first thing to go.

Thanks to all of you...seeing the different approaches and versions helped a great deal.

[boyhowdy]

I tried my own "fixes" for this shot and came up with basically the same suggestions as Howie. The light leaves take away from the flower which should draw your attention into it. I cropped the shot and darkened the leaves and grabbed the flower, then did an inverse selection and gaussian blurred the leaves just slightly. Then I slightly enhanced the flower. The blur of the darker leaves just automatically pulls you into the flower!

Patrick