Longwood Gardens Flower

[Norm Dulak]

Canon PowerShot IS S90, hand held
ISO 500; f/7.1, 1/40 sec
Topaz DeNoise; standard CS6 adjustments; modest Nik Color Efect Pro Detail Extractor

When I see an interesting flower at Longwood Gardens, Kennett Square, PA, I photograph it and then look for a nearby identification tag. Unfortunately, I didn't find one here. Still, the vibrant colors of this flower prompted me to share it with you.

What are your impressions of this flower?

Norm

[Diane Miller]

Love it! Wonderful sharpness, color, details and tonalities. Pretty sure it's a chrysanthemum.

[Mitch Haimov]

I second the mum ID. I like the subject and you have good sharpness. That said, this image is not really too my taste--too much DOF (the sharp leaves draw my eye away from your subject), too centered (although the centered comp does work better with the square aspect ratio than it would have un-cropped), too tight (the tight comp would work better for me if the leaves were OOF, but having them sharp I think the nearest tier of leaves should not be cut). You also have a lot of blown highlights where there is glare on the petals:

134712

[Norm Dulak]

I second the mum ID. I like the subject and you have good sharpness. That said, this image is not really too my taste--too much DOF (the sharp leaves draw my eye away from your subject), too centered (although the centered comp does work better with the square aspect ratio than it would have un-cropped), too tight (the tight comp would work better for me if the leaves were OOF, but having them sharp I think the nearest tier of leaves should not be cut). You also have a lot of blown highlights where there is glare on the petals:

134712

Mitch.

Great DOF is a characteristic of small digital cameras such as the S90. Thus selective focus that could blur only the leaves is not possible with my camera. See the comments in Jonathan Ashton's Red Admiral thread below. And while I find your technical analysis interesting, I really don't see a problem with the highlights. :S3:

[Bill Jobes]

I love this photo, Norm. Colors are most unexpected.

The DOF is, to me, perhaps the image's strongest defining attribute.

Shallow DOF floral photos are all too common.

Break that mold !

[Mitch Haimov]

If you're happy with it then it's a winner, Norm!

[Steve Maxson]

Hi Norm. This is another good example of the extended DOF one can achieve with the small-sensored cameras. I find the colors and form of this flower quite interesting and I can see why you chose to photograph it. You might try some NR in the less-in-focus background areas, but overall, this is nicely done!

[Jonathan Ashton]

Norm I like the colours and the composition. As soon as I look I sense it is not a straightforward shot, by that I don't mean anything derogatory, I look and think the image is a little "more edgy" of perhaps over sharpened a little. I suspect this is the Nik filter. Purely for for interest I would suggest comparing the image with one not using the filter and one using the filter at say half the strength of the original, I would like to see the comparisons if you have the time... As I say I don't dislike the image but as soon as I look I sense something has been done and when this is the case I always wonder if it is better as opposed to different from a straightforward image capture.

[Norm Dulak]

Thanks everyone for your comments!

Jon, I appreciate your view on this one. When I work up a flower, I generally reduce any noise first, apply levels and curves, and then look at it after applying CS6 Shadows & Highlights and, separately, the Nik filters, Detail Extractor and Tonal Contrast. With the latter filters I usually settle on the minimal default settings with minor tweaks. Looking at the three renditions, I pick the one I like most. In this case it was the Detail Extractor, because of the rich colors and detail it brought out. But invariably, the S&H version is "gentler." I've included it here in this repost, because it might be more to your liking.

Steve, thanks for pointing out noise. Often, the Nik filters bring out new noise that should be eliminated in a second round of NR. I don't think I did that in my OP.

Norm

[Jonathan Ashton]

Norm for my taste I would go for pane #9, and maybe consider just a tad more sharpening.

[Norm Dulak]

Norm for my taste I would go for pane #9, and maybe consider just a tad more sharpening.

Jon, your wish is my command.

[Jonathan Ashton]

Norm I think you have sharpened just a tad too much - look at the edges of the petals.
How does this look - Smart Sharpen Amount 60%, Radius 0.3px

[Norm Dulak]

Norm I think you have sharpened just a tad too much - look at the edges of the petals.
How does this look - Smart Sharpen Amount 60%, Radius 0.3px

Looks great, Jon. Thanks.

[Diane Miller]

Don't know if it was pointed out above or not, but the Radius amount would be smaller on the small JPEG and larger on the full-sized file, for the same result. It always depends on pixel dimensions.