Thank you. Mine as I said, are not technically perfect. The extraordinary thing about the hibiscus was that not only was it taken with my P&S Panasonic ZT7 but that it was taken hand held and using the full 12X zoom from a distance of about 5 metres.

How about this one:

Dare I add some of my own technically imperfect but I think artistically interesting shots?

Errrr, to be 100% honest, no. The first one looks positively creepy to me. Those hands look as if they could belong to someone dead.

They stand out from many of the flower photos posted here that are technically accomplished and artistically dull. Congratulations, great work. Like you I am fond of taking close ups of flowers using a dark background.

There you go

Well, I guess you can't please all of the people al of the time. I too prefer the original and I like the addition of the moon.

Let's leave that one for a while and I'll ask you good folks your opinion on another photo that has a slightly odd history.

I had visited the Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles and when I came out, I had walked about a block and a half and turned and very quickly took this snap for a different viewpoint of the building than one usually sees. It was yet again, qute literally a snap, once again hand holding my Panasonic TZ7 and using the full 12X zoom. I now know that when I took these shots the mode dial had moved to what is known as the clipboard used for taking shots of timetables, maps etc. and they lodge in another part of the camera and they are only 1200 X 1600 instead of 3648 X 2736 and in spite of that, a surprisingly acceptable quality. What I think is is astonishing is that I took this shot from some distance, and it has still captured the reflection of the men in the metal cladding of the building. The only post editing I have done has been to remove a large poster on the right hand side that gave it a strange, almost surreal quality.

Thank you for all your comments, however, believe it or not, the photo was an accurate rendition of what I saw. The sun was coming up behind the clump of trees on the left so that's why they are almost like a silhoutte. The "mountains" are in fact clouds on the horizon and the "lake" is the sea. I took the shot because I likes the colour of the sky and it's subtle graduation of colour from yellow to darker blue and that's why I left it as full frame and odd as it may seem, the moon was secondary. I only realised that it was there once I had downloaded it on to my computer.

Here are two other attempts. Do you like them any better? Personally I don't. They are no longer a representation of what I saw.

No, I'm not techy enough to use Photoshop. I do have a different photo editing software that could probably do it but to you mean lighter or darker?

You mean you prefer it like this?

I did explain that it was taken with a small Olympus compact P&S camera so there was no possibility of adjusting the apeture. Also bear in mind the difficult light at 6AM. It was quite literally a point and shoot shot.

I have a penchant for taking close ups of flowers. Here's my contribution for what they're worth.

WATERLILY


HIBISCUS


ORCHID

Anyone care to comment on this picture. It was taken about 6am in February using a cheap Olympus compact camera. In order to get the shot I had to use the full zoom and I was hand holding the camera (my friends tell me that I have a very steady hand). Terrible, bad or acceptable?

A little work to straighten up the horizon would improve it. You can even do that with Picassa.

But these shots weren't taken underwater!

and I don't believe that mine are any exception. That's why black and white photography is generally more artistic and by artistic I am not talking about the technical perfection of a shot. So much more care has to be taken over the composition.

The attached photo was taken during a recent visit to New Zealand. I have never seen a succulent like this before and that was my only reason for taking it. It's not a great photograph and its only interest lies in the actual subject matter.

The Eternal Spiral

Although yes, I am convinced that a good SLR in the hands of a professional photographer who knows all about apetures, f stops etc., will be able to produce ultra high quality photographs. I am also convinced that for the majority of amateur photographers, a compact camera is much more manageable and can at times produce extremely good results.

The photograph I am attaching would not stand up to much enlarging but considering the citcumstanes under which it was taken, I think that the result is more than just adequate.

I had left the Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles and had walked about a block or two, turned and, hand holding the camera (I have a very steady hand), using the full X12 zoom, quite literally snapped this with my Panasonic TZ7. Unfortunately the shot was taken in such haste that I did not realise that the mode dial had moved to what is known as the clipboard used for taking shots of timetables, maps etc. and it lodge in another part of the camera and is only 1200 X 1600 instead of 3648 X 2736 and in spite of that, a surprisingly acceptable quality. Or am I just kidding myself?

Cleaning the Walt Disney Concert Hall