Manipulated Crocuses - Critique Please

[Meerkat17]

http://www.btinternet.com/~David.Lewins/g5/images/crocus.jpg

Firstly, I desturated the picture and using the History Brush Tool I brushed in the yellow crocuses that I wanted.

Secondly, I masked off the rest of the stamens, petals, etc. and colorized each part.

Next, I manapiulate the image using the tecnique which many have been using on this forum for aeroplanes and buildings, etc.

I'm not sure about the background colour. Or if I should have gone further with the Hisory Brush and brought in a little of the green stems of the flowers.

Please, don't just view it as a "Pretty Picture" your critique is needed - I have my body armour on so fire away! :D

PS If you want to see the original its on my website http://davidlewins.fotopic.net/

Regards
David

[KO_300D]

Hi David,

I really like this image and the effects you have created.
perhaps the only thing I'd do differently is to colourize the stem beneath the flowers where you are able, and then blend it to grey, to further the effect of the flowers growing out of the image, but that's just being picky as the image is fine to me without further modification.

I've seen your site and you've taken some fantastic shots, well done :)

[Radtech1]

OK, I dont care for the desaturated background. Too much of a "Wizard of Oz" feel to it. Also, there has been some mention on that other thread about shadow placement. Since the effect that you are going for is one of the flowers growing out of (at a 90 degree angle to) the plane of the "photo" then it would be appropriate for you to have shadows of the flowers on the surface of the photo. If you do have such shadows, they get lost in the desaturated background.

This is different than a situation where the image is encroaching beyond the borders of the "photo". http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25141

There should be less blur between the 2:00 and 7:00 positions on the lower most yellow flower. Again, going for the illusion of the flowers projecting from the "photo" in the 3rd dimension, that area of the yellow flower would *still* be withing your depth of focus. If what I am seeing at that area of the flower is a shadow, and not a blur, then we are again running into the desaturation problem and the separation is getting lost.

I do like the blue gradient background background. The curl of the shadow of the "photo" seems to follow the gradient, giving the feel of a curved background background.

I was attempting a similar idea with one of the shots I took at the orchid festival. After several tries, I looked back at the other threads to see what made them work. What I finally noticed is that the images all seemed to have pretty homogeneous backgrounds in the "photo". Or at least not so busy as you have here.

It is very hard to do this well, I applaud your effort, but it just not quite works.

Rad (using the blunt slings and arrows)

[Radtech1]

Sorry, there is more.

Also on the topic of shadows. Again, since you are going for a 3d effect, the shadows thrown from the uppermost flowers are not quite right. They should be both further from thier source and more diffuse on the edges. If that makes any sense.

If it were me, I would try to stay away from a 3d effect and try to make it as though the flowers were growing beyond the boder of the "photo", but keeping it flat, in 2 dimensions.

Rad

[Meerkat17]

Now that I've dried my eyes, burnt my PS 7 CD and deleted all traces of it off the computer, I feel confident to reply!!! :lol:

I accept all you say Rad.

What I was trying to do was to come away from the same type of subject that others had used.

Firstly shadows, I didn't like the shadows in some of the other images that I'd seen - there's also a mistake on the instructions, as you produce the shadow for the protuding items long before you manipulate the image three dimensionally. One would have to know in advance how the image is going to lie on the page in order to set the shadows correctly.

Secondly, the background and the desaturation - this is far too dark and blurred (that's how I wanted the original flat image to be and set the camera for that) and doesn't help the image at all - I think I was too concerned with colouring the flowers and overall design. I noticed this too late in the process to be able to correct it successfully.

I think I'll put this one down to experience - the idea originated from simply colouring one of the flowers on a desaturated copy of the original. I need to look at that one again too and if I still like it, I'll put it on my site and it can be viewed there.

Thanks for all your thoughts and speaking your mind, you can put those blunt arrows away now!! :lol:

Best regards
David

[martcol]

I take my hat of to you David, there's a lot of work gone in to that and it shows. I think the yellow flower in the middle and the large one to the bottom left appear to sit on top of the image almost like water lillies (especially the yellow one). Perhaps the colour is a tad too bright. On that I don't think the bacground is quite there. The gradient is perfect but I think the blue is too zingy... I wonder if it might help the image components blend in more if there were a bit more detail in the photo's background. These are difficult to suggest because they're the kind of think I would have to try to see so, just trying to chip in..

Well done

Martin

[Dawg]

Meerkat

Thanks I hope you will show us another, My first thoughts were as KO's needs green stems. I seen another creation of an airplane flying off the paper and it started my creativity juices flowing, this just added to the desire.

Cool way cool!!!

Thanks for sharing
Dawg 8)

[JZaun]

Let me start by saying I wish I could do close to that. Now I felt the yellow flowers looked almost real but the purple just weren't. I am not sure what you were trying to accomplish but keep it up, I see great things comming, then you and teach me.

Thanks for the pic
JZaun

[Meerkat17]

http://www.btinternet.com/~David.Lewins/g5/images/crocus2.jpg

Thanks for all your comments and suggestions - I'm not a defeatist and certainly a glutton for punishment but I needed to know that it was or wasn't going to work. I'll leave that for you lot to decide.

Regards
David

PS "JZaun" I charge for lessons!!!! :lol:

[JZaun]

As I said before , I know nothing! but I like this one! I would pay for the lesson but I don't think I can afford the air fair! Thanks any way.
JZaun

[1rushfan]

I would put the "picture" of the flowers on a table in the image. The background is too false, while the flowers are too real. Right now the picture seems to be floating down to a concrete sidewalk as it falls off of the table it should be on.

[randallwade]

David,

the technique is well executed, however, both the gradients that you have posted, I don't like much. Also, the little yellow flower on the top left has it's stem blurred. for some reason my eye keeps drawing towards that. to increase the 3d effect, maybe isolating the flowers at the top and giving them their own drop shadow might do something. otherwise i think it is a cool image.

[Meerkat17]

Thanks again for all the imput - its certainly a good technique but it needs a stronger, tighter image with a good DOF to make it work.

The Image which I used was a macro shot with a very short DOF as I wanted to illustrate the flowers in the original picture, hence the stems are all out of focus.

Here's another which will prove my point. Also I think I prefer the exteded image without shadows, personal preference...

http://www.btinternet.com/~David.Lewins/g5/images/craster.jpg

Regards
David

[Radtech1]

Ok, David,

I like that a lot better. However, is just one small issue (for me) on this choice of subjects: I can't tell that the boat is in the water. From this particular manipulation it looks kind of like a picture of the boat on top of a separate picture of the waterway. I would like to see a little bit more of the bottom of the "photo" to tie together what looks like to separate things.

I applaud your efforts in once again thrashing your way through those convoluted instructions.

Rad

[Meerkat17]

I can't tell that the boat is in the water. From this particular manipulation it looks kind of like a picture of the boat on top of a separate picture of the waterway. I would like to see a little bit more of the bottom of the "photo" to tie together what looks like to separate things.

Sorry Rad, the boat isn't in the water its at the top of the waterway and it looked odd by leaving the bottom of the pic as the boat was also on a transporter with wheels!

I think by editing out all of that I've achieved what I set out to do, just a shame about the dirty bottom of the boat! :lol:

http://davidlewins.fotopic.net/p2647314.html

Regards
David

[Radtech1]

I can't tell that the boat is in the water. From this particular manipulation it looks kind of like a picture of the boat on top of a separate picture of the waterway. I would like to see a little bit more of the bottom of the "photo" to tie together what looks like to separate things.

Sorry Rad, the boat isn't in the water its at the top of the waterway and it looked odd by leaving the bottom of the pic as the boat was also on a transporter with wheels!

I think by editing out all of that I've achieved what I set out to do, just a shame about the dirty bottom of the boat! :lol:

http://davidlewins.fotopic.net/p2647314.html

Regards
David

OK, I am glad to know that I was not missing something. They looked like "seperate things" because they are! My mind was trying to put them together because, having grown up on lakefront property, that is where boats were - in the water.

Rad