A rose by any other name

[windrider86]

Olymous E500, 1/200, F3.5. 35mm. iso 100.
I figured its almost time for no more flowers so trying to get in all the shots i can. Rose shots seem to be pretty common so i guess this is no exception. I did try to boost the staturation up just a tad to give it a bit more of a boost and tried softening it up. Is it too much?

[baseballboy828]

It's too saturated for my taste. You lose a lot of the detail through the saturation. I'd ease up on the saturation a fair amount.

[windrider86]

Thats kinda what i thgout but sometimes you just need some confirmation. Thank you!

[jiminyClickit]

windrider86,

Later day light is better for this reason too: at a lower angle, it's less harsh and the petals lit from slightly behind create their own saturation and glow.

In New York, it's time to photograph seeds and things going to winter dormant stages. I did the collecting too, for our long winter of colorlessness.

[windrider86]

The original

[baseballboy828]

Just so you know: Link to the original on flickr. That we we can see info on the image and flickr doesn't ban you for stealing bandwidth.

[windrider86]

Um, I did I did excatly as any other picture. went to flickr and copied the url from the web site and pasted it here

[baseballboy828]

I understand, but that's against flickr rules. You're supposed to have the picture as a link back to the flickr page of that photo. Not only is it a flickr rule, it's helpful for us since we can look through your other stuff and see the exif on images.

[phlyersphan]

Just use the HTML code that flickr provides instead of the plain URL.

Also, I like the original better than the edit. Too much of the detail was lost in the saturated version.

[Thunderpup]

I like the original too, but I like the border you used, also.