Edited flowers (Page 4): Would love to see their natural beauty without the edit...but lighting lighting edit. The colors seem so strong. I love natural beauty.

boncrayon

Would love to see their natural beauty without the edit...but lighting lighting edit. The colors seem so strong. I love natural beauty.

Susan yamakawa

#4 for me

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

boncrayon wrote:

Would love to see their natural beauty without the edit...but lighting lighting edit. The colors seem so strong. I love natural beauty.

Then you would enjoy the post I made the day before of some of these same flowers (https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-659115-1.html)

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

Susan yamakawa wrote:

#4 for me

Thanks for the visit and your generous comment, Susan. That has harsh highlights, but I liked the effect. It did not go over well with most viewers.

Earnest Botello Loc: Hockley, Texas

Beautiful series, Mike.

Ballard Loc: Grass Valley, California

Hi UTMike
For some reason the ninth shot of the blue flower really caught my attention, it had a real feeling of cool and quite about it, beautiful shots. Thanks for sharing the images.

edrobinsonjr Loc: Boise, Idaho

Well done, Mike.

Boots Brown Loc: Phoenix AZ

#3 using a polarizer might have reduced a lot of that sheen and saturated the blossoms ; #4 use diffuser to limit contrast; #9 brighter , contrasting colored background - ? yellow, ? orange; #10 not really an attractive flower - skip it

Ourspolair

I think that the red is oversaturated in #2 and #3. Easy enough to reduce in post and seems to be a characteristic of some image sensors. Reminds me that I have to do a couple of edits on my website red flower images!
Otherwise I liked the way you treated the images.
Keep at it! BTW - most women have a better perception of reds than us guys!

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

Earnest Botello wrote:

Beautiful series, Mike.

Always good to hear from you Earnest, thanks.

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

Ballard wrote:

Hi UTMike
For some reason the ninth shot of the blue flower really caught my attention, it had a real feeling of cool and quite about it, beautiful shots. Thanks for sharing the images.

Just between you and me, that is the original shot of #1 before post processing. With the flower lens I shoot with a very high f/stop to gain depth of field.

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

edrobinsonjr wrote:

Well done, Mike.

Thanks, Ed, I appreciate the visit.

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

Boots Brown wrote:

#3 using a polarizer might have reduced a lot of that sheen and saturated the blossoms ; #4 use diffuser to limit contrast; #9 brighter , contrasting colored background - ? yellow, ? orange; #10 not really an attractive flower - skip it

I do appreciate the idea of a polarizer. FYI #9 is just #1 before post processing.

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

Ourspolair wrote:

I think that the red is oversaturated in #2 and #3. Easy enough to reduce in post and seems to be a characteristic of some image sensors. Reminds me that I have to do a couple of edits on my website red flower images!
Otherwise I liked the way you treated the images.
Keep at it! BTW - most women have a better perception of reds than us guys!

Thanks for taking the time to look and comment. This set was editing that pushed my normal boundaries to see what the reaction would be (e.g. #10 - not a pretty flower). BTW most women probably have better perception period (LOL).

Ballard Loc: Grass Valley, California

UTMike wrote:

Just between you and me, that is the original shot of #1 before post processing. With the flower lens I shoot with a very high f/stop to gain depth of field.

I can see that in the image now. I expect that the first image is closer to the real color, but I still like the mood generated by the ninth image. Thanks for the reply.