Comments: 65
Nartemide [2009-06-17 12:10:06 +0000 UTC]
You've been featured here:
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
euristis [2006-08-14 12:39:07 +0000 UTC]
Lilly with waterdrops ... mhum ... great shot, thx for sharing it with us
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
phoenixtamer [2005-09-10 11:06:11 +0000 UTC]
hay this is a relly good shot i want to do somthing like this but slitly difront i was wondring haw did u get the black back drop (in photoshop or did you yous a black pees of paper?)
im so faving this
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
minniemae [2005-07-08 00:49:49 +0000 UTC]
Oh my GOSH! This is so PRETTY! O.O! If I were there, I bet I could see my reflection in the dew drops! ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Epthumia [2005-07-06 06:37:09 +0000 UTC]
that is quite quite beautiful.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
tessakitten [2005-06-29 07:30:08 +0000 UTC]
I think that the shot is very unique. The calla lily is gorgeous despite and probably because of its simplicity so it's obvious why everyone wants to photograph it but you're right, there are so many that most just fade into the background. The drops of water, however, are usually seen on roses or something and the crop of the picture + the white on black makes it stand out from the rest ^_^ Love it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
tessakitten In reply to SqueakingShoeless [2005-06-29 07:34:14 +0000 UTC]
well no critique necessary, m'dear ^_~! it's a thoroughly lovely shot.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
GerbilEater [2005-06-10 12:26:22 +0000 UTC]
I didn't know they were called calla lilies. In Peru we call them cartuchos, which means "cartridges" (don't ask me why). There's some odd grey pixellation in the corners (except the bottom right). Otherwise it's a very nice shot, and you chose a good specimen!
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
GerbilEater In reply to SqueakingShoeless [2005-06-10 16:00:46 +0000 UTC]
Now that I look at it again, it is actually quite visible, also around the edge of the flower (at the boundary with the black background). I doubt it's my screen, it's a 1024x768 TFT.
Does your camera actually save as PNG? Mine just does JPG, which is a bit of a shit, since my old one (an olympus) used to do TIFFs (but about 30 MB a picture, hehe).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
GerbilEater In reply to SqueakingShoeless [2005-06-10 16:18:04 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, I've started doing that too, since I noticed that even at the highest JPEG quality, it was still slightly inferior to PNG24.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
GerbilEater In reply to SqueakingShoeless [2005-06-10 16:23:07 +0000 UTC]
heh, yeah, it's difficult compromising size over quality, I hate having to make these decisions. My life is so hard!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
GerbilEater In reply to SqueakingShoeless [2005-06-10 16:30:49 +0000 UTC]
hah, that's what I was thinking. And being a bit of a geek.
Sometimes I miss the excitement of taking a roll of film to be developed and passing the glossy prints around for people to see. Though if they came out a bit shit it could be quite disappointing. But, since I'm a bit of a geek, I like manipulating my digital ones, so I'll stick with digital.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
GerbilEater In reply to SqueakingShoeless [2005-06-10 16:39:28 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, and it's beating Kodak to death. They aren't too happy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ArtlessHmmmm [2005-06-08 18:42:49 +0000 UTC]
Take it you photoshoped (or similar) the lilly to get black stemless background!
I do like the water droplets on the Lilly - some have so much detail you can see the air bubbles in the midddle! Now that IS cool. Like how on the right you can see the outside of the flower - but wid that cut off and then none on the front/left it seems a little unbalanced. But then - i'm fussy!
Overall cool shot
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ArtlessHmmmm In reply to SqueakingShoeless [2005-06-09 22:51:28 +0000 UTC]
he he - pleasure - comments...... i just urm get.. carried away shall we say! But then this is not a bad thing!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>