We have some flowers blooming on the side of the house that I think are azaleas. I shot a macro of one flower yesterday and didn't care for it in color. So, I converted it to black and white for the heck of it. Better, but still not right. Boosted the contrast to an unnatural level. Hmm, not bad. Started playing with filters and really liked the result of the watercolor treatment. By that time, I might have been so attached to the photo through the work I'd put into it that my opinion was no longer objective. So, I'm posting here for your thoughts. Surely it isn't everyone's cup of tea but being a bit of a modernist I rather like the stark contrasts and abstract quality.
As always, thanks for your honest comments and critiques.
Posted by Dave Travis on April 9, 2006 at 11:35 PM
"As always, thanks for your honest comments and critiques."
Just finished a show in Monument.
Bret, what are you up to?
I really enjoyed your natural stuff.
I bet this was beautiful in color.
Why alter what is real?
Good luck.
Long live Ciba!!!
I've done this effect many times and printed it looks pretty cool. It's your artistic expression coming out in just another way, so flow with it and see where you end up!
Posted by Todd Caudle on April 10, 2006 at 1:57 AM
I agree with Ken that it looks like a Georgia O'Keefe painting. Good call. I also agree that it would be nice to see the exact treatment you've presented here, except in color. The b&w is interesting, but I think the effects would look better in living color. Hopefully you did the b&w conversion as an adjustment layer, which can be temporarily deleted or turned off, so you can show us what the color version would look like with ease.
I like it. The treatment is very eye-catching, and I like it in b&w. On it's own, color might work better to hold the eye, but I can definitely see a series of similar works, all in b&w.
Thanks for all the great comments! I'll post a color version momentarily, since a few of you requested to see it. I'm still more partial to the b&w version but the color one stands on its own, too.
Okay, here's the color version. The background went almost completely black when converted to watercolor so I increased the contrast to make it more dramatic. Also reduced the saturation by about 30% to make it less obnoxious. What do ya'll think of this one?
Posted by Scott Buckel on April 10, 2006 at 1:02 PM
Bret - I think the color one has more impact. THe BW version is interesting, but does not have the impact of the color one.
Posted by Nathan Buck on April 10, 2006 at 1:48 PM
I like the color version Bret. Nice work. I think we all have plenty of chances to explore the literal world with our photography. Taking some time to be a bit more abstract is good I think.
Nathan
Posted by Todd Caudle on April 10, 2006 at 6:58 PM
Try increasing the watercolor effect even more. With or without, I like this better.
Thanks for the comments on the second one. I'll keep working with it and see what I can come up with. It's been a lot of fun experimenting with different filters and treatments. Definitely not something I've done, or even considered doing, in the past.
I also like the color version better. It still seems a little "in your face" color-wise...I wonder what it would look like desaturated maybe another 30%?
Discussion
15 repliesAs always, thanks for your honest comments and critiques.
Just finished a show in Monument.
Bret, what are you up to?
I really enjoyed your natural stuff.
I bet this was beautiful in color.
Why alter what is real?
Good luck.
Long live Ciba!!!
Ken
Dave Showalter
Nathan
I also like the color version better. It still seems a little "in your face" color-wise...I wonder what it would look like desaturated maybe another 30%?
Ain't Photoshop great?
Ken