Native Cherry branch with Flowers 2

Here is a more springlike version. In addition to making it lighter, I also tried to eliminate the maplike texture. As I look at it now, I'm thinking that the contrast between the sharper leaves and the somewhat blurred leaves is too much.

It puzzles me that sometimes an image will get very few comments. I usually interpret this as people not liking the image. If that is the case, it would be more helpful to me to receive comments telling me what doesn't work in the image. That way, I can learn and grow.

I very much appreciate those of you who always comment. Thank you so very much!! You make participating in this forum worthwhile.

I like this texture for both its color and, well, texture. The colors in it very nicely echo those in the leaves. The only thing about it I'd modify is that line radiating from the center at about 11 o'clock.

Until I read what you said about it, I didn't consciously pick up on the focus difference in the leaves. I have no idea if it would work, but if you're not happy with that here's an idea you could try. It appears that you applied the texture over the branch and leaves. I wonder if exaggerating the difference by masking it off the in-focus ones would be effective. Another thing I thought of was using Photoshop's Select>Focus Area to put a copy of the in-focus parts of the branch on a separate layer and doing a field blur on it so everything was consistently out of focus. It worked, but I like what you posted much better.

Anita, I like this bkgd much better. But I find too much of the branch and leaves overlapping and out of focus. It seems my eyes are searching for a continuous line of focus.

On the comments quanity: I think it mostly has to do with how much individual time someone has. Maybe that day, that week, etc. is particularly busy. Maybe they are out of town (my biggest reason for no comments). I don't think it always reflects on the quality of the image. Then also maybe folks are not quite sure what exactly they think about an image, or why. I have had to stretch myself and practice to make meaningful comments on images. That has had the wonderful effect of making me think about my own images more carefully. Anyway, there are tons of reasons people may not comment right away or at all. I think we all move through more active to less active cycles of photography. But...since this is an interactive forum we totally would love to have all who post also comment. We really want to hear your comments! That is why we post. And to those of you not yet posting, come on in, the water is fine!

Thank you, Dennis and Nancy for your thoughts. It is good to be encouraged, and it is good to know an image is weak. You are excellent commentators (is that a word?)!

I agree with Nancy that one has to put in effort to write better comments, and that the process helps one more accurately evaluate one's own images.

I'm trying to catch up after several busy weeks and a couple more to come. I'm reading posts from the most recent down so had to jump to the prior post. I like both equally, but the texture on the earlier one is a little puzzling. Not that that is a bad thing.

I love the OOF leaves here, and the rich warm colors. The BG is gorgeous.

I keep hearing not to let a line or element exit at a corner, but never quite figured out why that is bad -- it has never bothered me.

I sometimes only skim through without time to comment, or don't have anything to add to the earlier comments. I also don't find enough time for my own creative play, so don't have much to post here. I keep hoping to remedy that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diane Miller

I'm trying to catch up after several busy weeks and a couple more to come. I'm reading posts from the most recent down so had to jump to the prior post. I like both equally, but the texture on the earlier one is a little puzzling. Not that that is a bad thing.

I love the OOF leaves here, and the rich warm colors. The BG is gorgeous.

I keep hearing not to let a line or element exit at a corner, but never quite figured out why that is bad -- it has never bothered me.

I sometimes only skim through without time to comment, or don't have anything to add to the earlier comments. I also don't find enough time for my own creative play, so don't have much to post here. I keep hoping to remedy that.

---

Thanks for the comments, Diane. As Nancy wisely wrote, we each go through periods when our lives are overly busy and we can't be active on this site.

I, too, don't know why lines should not come in from a corner.

Lines or elements exiting at the corner . . . I've seen the advice not to do that, but I'm not sure it was accompanied by an explanation. (Could be it was but I've forgotten.) Anyway, here's my guess about the reason. If the viewer's eye is following the line and nothing stops it, it's likely to leave the image. Vignettes and other things in the image -- be they elements, tones, or whatever -- can divert the viewer's attention and keep them in the image. I wonder if the edge of the image can do that to some extent, as well, depending on its level of contrast with the rest of the page online or a mat or frame. If my eye has moved to the corner, the little that's left of the two edges forms an arrowhead that's also pointing out of the image. On the other hand, if the line exits at some distance from the corner, the edge is opposing the line of travel to some extent rather than working with it. That's my guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dennis Bishop

Lines or elements exiting at the corner . . . I've seen the advice not to do that, but I'm not sure it was accompanied by an explanation. (Could be it was but I've forgotten.) Anyway, here's my guess about the reason. If the viewer's eye is following the line and nothing stops it, it's likely to leave the image. Vignettes and other things in the image -- be they elements, tones, or whatever -- can divert the viewer's attention and keep them in the image. I wonder if the edge of the image can do that to some extent, as well, depending on its level of contrast with the rest of the page online or a mat or frame. If my eye has moved to the corner, the little that's left of the two edges forms an arrowhead that's also pointing out of the image. On the other hand, if the line exits at some distance from the corner, the edge is opposing the line of travel to some extent rather than working with it. That's my guess.

---

Your explanation makes a lot of sense.

This texture fits the image very well and it is more appealing for a spring flower/stem. The stem looks very nice as is. I normally don't have any reservations about lines exiting at or near a corner and I've never heard any "rule" one way or the other. I have done it on many occasions. But in this case, due to to the length of the stem and changing color at the edge, I would cut it off where it changes color at that last segment, if it were mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy Howle

This texture fits the image very well and it is more appealing for a spring flower/stem. The stem looks very nice as is. I normally don't have any reservations about lines exiting at or near a corner and I've never heard any "rule" one way or the other. I have done it on many occasions. But in this case, due to to the length of the stem and changing color at the edge, I would cut it off where it changes color at that last segment, if it were mine.

---

excellent suggestion! But, I can't do that without going back to the texture that creates the lighter border. Instead, I'm going to darken the branch up at that end.

Anita, I don't mind the stem exiting the frame, but I'm a child of the 60's so I've never much liked rules:S3: This version is lighter and more spring like and I like both versions. I am bothered somewhat by the blur on that one part of the stem (although that might be a function of the texture) and also the contrast between the in focus leaves and the oof ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheryl Slechta

Anita, I don't mind the stem exiting the frame, but I'm a child of the 60's so I've never much liked rules:S3: This version is lighter and more spring like and I like both versions. I am bothered somewhat by the blur on that one part of the stem (although that might be a function of the texture) and also the contrast between the in focus leaves and the oof ones.

---

Interesting that the out of focus vs. focus leaves are more noticeable in this version. Thanks for your input. I, too, am a child of the 60s, though I was rebellious before I knew the 60s existed!

Anita, I am a little late to the party, but I really like this image. The texture works well, and the warm colors blend nicely with the flower. There is definitely a diversity of opinion about the OOF leaves and stems; I would prefer that they were more in focus, although in general I am trying to learn to appreciate the abstractness and suggestiveness of OOF elements of floral images.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wendy Kates

Anita, I am a little late to the party, but I really like this image. The texture works well, and the warm colors blend nicely with the flower. There is definitely a diversity of opinion about the OOF leaves and stems; I would prefer that they were more in focus, although in general I am trying to learn to appreciate the abstractness and suggestiveness of OOF elements of floral images.

---

Wendy: I appreciate your comments, including your thoughts about out of focus elements. I think that appreciating OOF elements is learned as it is not how we see the world. We photographers get used to it, but non-photographers are sometimes puzzled.