Girly Bits

I know there's a rule here about porn and nudity which is curious because you are looking at this thread in the hope that something snuck through.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Just some flower girly bits. Stamen in fact.
I'll do some boy bits for the girls later.


_DSC9437 by tom.dinning, on Flickr

Hey Tom, an interesting shot, although I can tell what I'm looking at I'm having a hard time working out how it was taken. The colours are very striking and the rendering a bit noisy, but overall a nice effect.

What did you use to photograph the Stamen Tom?? A dedicated macro lens?? The image is so close if you had not told us it was a stamen i would of had no clue to what it was. What flower is it from too?? Its very colorful although i might of not gone in so close.
Welcome to Yop by the way

Thanks Guys. The 'rendering' is totally on purpose. I'm not big on flower shots but I force myself from time to time just so I don't get too arrogant. For me that requires I attack the subject with a different vision; one that doesn't please everyone but meets my needs, which is to get lost in the subject and the process and find a space that feels good. I don't take photos for other people, just me. Everything is intentional. If someone doesn't like something or sees it another way, I meant to do that to them. At least thats my story and I'm sticking to it.

Here are some male bits for your enjoyment.


sonata-2 by tom.dinning, on Flickr

A nice flower Tom, I presume from the size of droplets they are a fairly small plant? Good DOF.

That is how it should be Tom. Taking images for yourself, not anybody else. Its how you see things in your minds eye. It is nice to see different variations. It would be boring if we were all doing the same type of photography It was just not apparent on what you had set out to achieve in your image

In most cases it probably isn't necessary to know what the photographer wants to achieve unless the photo has some descriptive or explanatory purpose. The rest are interpretive and I'm happy to leave it up to the viewer to make up their own mind. Any attempt at the viewer trying to read into the photo what the artist might have meant is a bit like trying to understand why my wife has just bought another pair of shoes. Any thoughts on why that go through my head don't alter the existence of the shoes or what their function might be. So I just say 'Nice, dear' and move on.

Now there's an interesting short cut,Ken. I wonder if it's the cultural divide that has caught my eye.
Was it the flower you meant or the photo? I only sent you the photo. You'll need to wait for the flowers.
Just for the record, what do you identify as a 'good DOF'? Or is that another separation by a common language?
You know what us Aussies are like. We're still grunting like koalas and hopping around with the Roos.
Cheers
Tom

Nothing to do with cultural divide, It's just my bad written word Tom

I meant in the good way in which your intended points of interest is razor sharp, but everything else is creamy smooth and soft, but still adds that little something to the overall picture.

Also I was trying to gauge the physical size of the flower as a whole.

I just know the white flower as 'Sonata' and each flower is about a cm across. I'm getting too old to go grovelling on the ground so its a rarity I take flower shots 'in situ' which is a bit disconcerting to the neighbours when I go collecting.

sometimes I bring back more than I bargained for as well.


_DSC0809 by tom.dinning, on Flickr