Well, my wife says pastel "greenish/yellowish" for the complimentary color. Man, I can't tell. I think I'm half-color blind.

You know, rocco, I didn't even think about a white background and that even opens that idea up to a light pink one, or something on the opposite side of the color wheel, like, what would that be, green. The top one was the original and my concern was about the orientation and cropping. This isn't a staged shot. My wife had put a vase on our deck table with this flower in it and something about that angle I shot it at produced that black background. Probably should have looked at what was behind it but I believe heavily in bokeh and that it heals a lot of wounds. Why don't you do the one of your preference and put it back up here if you have the time and don't mind. I'd like to see how it looks. I don't use PS or anything heavier than my original Elements which ver 2. I haven't gotten into layers yet at all. May never.

Golly Kathi, I'm flattered plumb red. I've got to tell you though, some of the stuff I write embarrasses me when I get a good look back at it. I find words left out, run-on sentences, etc., ...makes my wife duck her head too or pull her skirt up over her head which I didn't use to mind at all when we were younger. Not that I am recommending your pursuit of the things I write, but there's a short cut in the event you aren't aware of it. If you click on my name above my scary picture, it'll take you to my profile. Down the list of information there, you'll come to a place where, if you click on the word (list) in parenthesis, it will take you to a list of all my posts and tell you what subject I'm spewing about. Thank you very much for your flattering words. I don't think that ever hurts anyone's feelings. Reader? Well, not so much outside of photography and computer items. I don't mean to let you down but I can only remember reading one book since high school that I've read strictly for pleasure. I did get a little education along the way and the time I spent in military service made me do some writing so I guess whatever you may be seeing was forced on me - never intentional. I did hang around a bunch of English majors and ministers in my family. Guess some of it rubbed off. Earlier, there were times when I thought it would ruin my image but as I get older I don't find it to be all that much of a disadvantage.

1. May I plead with you to drop down to lower case letters. All upper letters case connotes yelling on the Internet. I don't care to be yelled at. I have a wife. :-)

2. I envy you and your romp through Deb's garden.

3. I'm betting that your Canon 9000f film scanner is at least 4 & 1/2 times better'n mine which is a Nikon 2000, let's see 2 into 9 will go 4 times and carry the 1 and that leaves, lets see, what's half of 2... plus a "f" (yay me) and I bet you'll soon learn how to use it. Like riding a bike, you only have to be successful once to become a real bike rider.

4. Happy for you and the classes. Do good, ya hear!

5. So, if time permits, develop your own. Since you have a film scanner, you could develop your own film in a bathroom, scan 'em into your computer and print your own prints if you have a printer - and you can do all of that pretty inexpensively. All you need is a small one roll stainless developing tank for the film and the chemicals which were being packaged in single application packs. Perhaps that's your plan is. It'd be simple to do if you can get away with printing your own - I mean if the quality is up to what your profs demand. If not and you choose to do it the old way, as you may already know, in addition to the developing tank you need a timer, an enlarger which you can find cheap used at garage or yard sales, craigslist.com, three trays, 3 plastic mixing/storage bottles for the chemicals, some paper, and a red light bulb. In fact, in the adverts, or on Craigslist, if you find an enlarger for sale there's an odds on chance that the rest of the stuff will be available too. Don't overlook thrift stores. I just donated two enlargers. You can do it in your bathroom if in an apartment or wherever. You don't need temp control with b&w so you're good to go.

Thank you strubbles. If ever I find my way back there again, I'll sure take your suggestions. I tend to move on but I'm sure I can find other situations in the future to which I can apply your ideas. Never without a variety of examples, I may have some that would appease you more other than the iris which was a one-time shot but I wouldn't bother you with them even if I knew where they were. You've made your point well and I've taken it accordingly. Thanks.

I'd like opinions of which shot is more aesthetically appealing, please.

Post withdrawn... Will submit later. Sorry!

I like that but remembering back, my response to it is, "yah, and it's a good quick way to go to sleep in the beginning too - when you hit the ground."

Extremely nice shot DB, almost lithographic. Have you tried converting it to b&w. I have one similar taken at night with a full moon captured coming through it radiating the light outward from the source. Makes me shiver each time I occasionally run across it. I really like the first one. That's my kind of selective color.

Very nice snailgarter. I see you're like me - always out in nature looking for those instances when something look like something it's not, like the alligator. Not a fan of spiders but yours is about as good looking a spider as I ever saw. I really like the butterfly. I'm a "fill the frame" kind of nut and left to my own devices, I'd crop in on that to emphasize the butterfly, assuming that was your primary goal - the butterfly. It's very nice either way. Somehow, and I don't recall how or why it occurred, but I found a totally intact dead Monarch a few summers ago. It was frozen in time with, wings out, and front legs just right so I could hang it on a flower. I, never being one to avoid excesses, didn't simply hang it on "a" flower. I hung it on every flower on the mountain side where we lived. I have a lifetime supply of butterfly shots on whatever color flower you might desire. Amazing.

"Snookered" is pretty much what I've been thinking. Good word. I haven't yet investigated the self-publishing route but I think I may look into it a bit. I would not mind selling some of my shots as long as there wasn't the upfront pressure involved such as doing a wedding. I wouldn't do a wedding at all. I've been running from "Murphy" too long.
:-)

Thanks Henry. As I said, that was my first roll of Velvia. It smacked me up beside my head when I got the slides back from development. I, too, think these shots are a bit surreal. I've moderated a few things since.

I occasionally shoot "auto" as a guard against either "not knowing," or "momentarily not remembering all the details precisely" and wanting to make sure I get something. I call "auto" my emergency bracket setting. It has pulled me out of the fire on more than one occasion. "Be proud," as they say, for whatever you have to do to come away with the picture, if you are so fortunate.

You sound like you might be able to make your husband a happy man. Ya outta open a school, maybe help cut down on all the unwed mothers lurking about.

Jest aside, generally, bearing in mind that I'm not a pro portrait goober but taking into account that I have done some reading on the subject, portrait lens, if that's your main focus, seems to want to be done in the range from 85 to 135mm depending on whether it's a single subject or multiple subjects, with 100mm being pretty sort of average. It gets you in close enough without getting you in so close that the setter becomes uncomfortable. A lens that doesn't zoom is usually, but not always, a sharper lens but a zoom gives you flexibility to cover a single subject and then make the switch to a multiple without having to change lens. The more subjects in your viewfinder, the shorter and wider the lens needs to be to get everyone in without stacking 'em on top of each other, within the constraints of the size of the space you're shooting in.

Either way, check on luminous-landscape for reviews of lens in that range and remember, with Canon lens, the more you spend, the better the lens you normally get so find what fits into your budget that'll do the job for you and study up on them, compare them, and then make your choice. Nice looking family you have there, from behind, if it is you and your family. I see at least two good reasons for you to be shooting pictures. Good luck and happy lens hunting.
:)

Thanks, and I value everyone's comments. It helps me see through other's eyes later. I did address why #1 is like it later on in the post and included an image that shows the "other side" of the pond an why I didn't want you to see it. I guess you missed it. If you have time, go back up and check it out. There's a road, a dirt embankment, and a huge concrete culvert just on the other side of the pond, not too inviting as a country setting. Thanks again.