I agree and think your concept is successful. As I said, the dominant size of the OOF flower is my problem. IOW, you did what you could. ;-)
Jack --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Jack, > Thanks for looking. Don't be reluctant to express an opinion. That's > > why we do this. It's interesting how the take on the DOF here varies. > > Two have had a problem with the OOF rear flower. Some have found it > pleasing. I guess it's a matter of how we see things. I experimented > > with several different stops before I shot this. To me, this was the > > best rendering. It's at f9.5. In my estimation that yielded the best > > compromise of receding DOF and definition for the second flower. I > felt the receding DOF was important both to blur the background and > to establish a perspective between the two flowers. > > On Jul 14, 2006, at 6:10 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > > > Always attracted to the dramatic shape of these particular > blossoms. > > I'm reluctant to say it, but the OOF blossom is too dominant an > > element > > in this scene. > > Beautiful rich colors are certainly a positive. > > > > Jack > > > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> A lithsome pair in their tutus: > >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4681755 > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> [email protected] > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
