Hi all, I'd like to thank all the reviewers of this week's gallery, even if only at the last minute; four reviewers for a summer week that is great !! I took the picture of that flower for a friend who likes flowers and gardening and was interested by that unusual petals of these iris. You know how it is when amateur photographers are strolling along with folks or friends : they are always impatiently waiting for you to come and you unmistakably finish with the feeling you have only taken hasty pictures, this was one of these cases, but I liked the repeated diagonal lines formed by the petals of the flowers. Greg seems to have caught that when he says the picture reminds him to the stained glass window of a church. Concerning the camera used, that was an error of the staff women. I have not indicated any camera and as Chandler pointed out : it was not taken with a rangefinder, but instead using the 28-105 Canon zoom lens which also offers a macro position; I like this lens and the way it blurs things at large apertures (is that what is called bokeh ?); until now I've rather been using rangefinders and the ability to get easily blurred backgrounds is new for me and interesting to explore. However, somehow, I've the feeling that most of the time it does just make for easy pictures and I'm not sure whether it is a good idea to use it too frequently : I'd be glad to hear more about how others members of the PF list feels about that possibility and whether they use it much or not ? Isn't that just like another PS filter and a "more is less" situation ? Concerning the dead flower half appearing under the main flower.. Well I wondered whether to take it away or not too, but I kind of like the imperfection of life; however I agree that in this case it may be just a distracting element and not something well thought off. Thank again to all the reviewers ! and a special thank to BobT : it's nice to read your thoughtful reviews again, we have all missed them. Chritiane Le 23.6.2002 6:55, « Morley Roberts » <ac220@freenet.carleton.ca> a écrit : > > Roh - Great balanced shot - delicate colour - not dark inside flower. I > might want to remove what appears to be a dead flower below. Le 25.6.2002 4:29, « Gregory Fraser » <Gregory.Fraser@pwgsc.gc.ca> a écrit : > Christiane Roh (Bourgogne, May 2002) - Back to film eh? I honestly can't > tell if I like the two flower composition. I do like the way the foreground > flower just barely touches the edges of the frame as if holding itself up. I > also love the smooth bokeh, the dark background and the way it is angled and > not horizontal. Blue has long been my favourite color is this blue is > marvelous. These flowers remind me of a stained glass window in a darkened > cathedral. Le 25.6.2002 11:31, « chandler » <chandler@yomogi.or.jp> a écrit : >> Christiane Roh - Bourgogne, May 2002 "Shot with a Contax G2." > > Nicely done, Christiane. It seems slightly odd to tell us the camera > without mentioning the lens; and this kind of shot is one where (afaics) > an SLR offers only advantages over a rangefinder. > > I'm not quite sure about the way the flower behind has had its top > chopped off, yet somehow you've captured the iricity* very well. > > > * Don't ask. No, it isn't a word. "Iris". What about "Bourgogne"? The > region of France - not so far from where you live - or is it also a > reference to the colour or the flower? Le 29.6.2002 10:36, « Qkano » <wildimages@lineone.net> a écrit : >> Christiane Roh - Bourgogne, May 2002 > Nice flowers with suitably out-of-focus background. > Focus is maintained on the petal coming to us. > All the others are cropped bar one. > Detail? sommat sticking out below and to the right of the main petal. > The sort of detail that can make or break a shot. >
