Emerging Amaryllis
- Thread starter Gary R. Smith
- Start date
Brian Moore
Moderator
The adjective that first popped to mind is "sensual."
Gary R. Smith
Well-Known Member
You're thinking of Georgia O'Keeffe
but now that you mention it...
Gary R. Smith
Well-Known Member
24 hours later...
Gianluca Drago
Well-Known Member
I like the second one more @Gary R. Smith also because it doesn't show the halo along the stem that was there in the first one. Nice shot of a new life project.
Gary R. Smith
Well-Known Member
That was my fault. I didn't do a good job of framing the first one and wanted to blur the background and I just did a quick pair of selections with an invert before the Gaussian Blur.
We seem to be much later this year with our annual Amaryllis. My wife always gets one from a friend. They end up being such a spectacular bloom. These were captured with the a7Riii and a Tamron 24mm prime @ f/4
Gianluca Drago
Well-Known Member
Amaryllis are amazing. Thank you for having reminded me of their existence with you nice photos.
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Yes, this one is much better. Really well executed, Gary. Again, impressive work!
Gary R. Smith
Well-Known Member
Thanks, don't you ever sleep?
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Full moons only…
Gary R. Smith
Well-Known Member
Today's condition:
Gianluca Drago
Well-Known Member
This is starting to be a series. Nice!
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Indeed it is!
Gianluca Drago
Well-Known Member
@Gary R. Smith I notice only now, after a second (or third, or fourth) look at your Amaryllis photos that the names of the pictures are like a timer (24 hours later, 48 hours later...). I like this recording of the chronological data.
I also observe that over time the flower -- as it grows -- will no longer be completely included in the frame. What are you going to do? Will you change shooting distance or lens, or will you accept the fact that only a detail of the flower will be framed in the photo?
Last remark, which please you shouldn't take as a criticism, but rather an exchange of opinions: as far as I can see in my browser I have the impression that in the last photo the bud on the left lacks detail in its apical part, as if the software you used to develop the image created an out-of-gamut area. Is this just my impression? Saturated reds are often difficult to process for both cameras and editing software.
Anyway, I renew my compliments on the photos and the idea of documenting this phenomenon.
I look forward to how the story will develop in the next episode!
Last edited:
Gary R. Smith
Well-Known Member
I think Sony cameras are noted for their poor reds. I did try to enhance things a bit so that there was differentiation on the tightly wrapped petals.
Gary R. Smith
Well-Known Member
Today we are treated to 2 views. In order to not get blasted shadows on the wall I have moved the flower farther from the wall for the shot with the 24mm. I also shot the more advanced bloom straight on with a 28-200 zoomed to 200 and moved so I'd get the bloom centered in frame (with cropping of course).
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Aw, I like shadows on the wall 
Gary R. Smith
Well-Known Member
And now for some context...
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Your room is disturbingly tidy, Gary! Nice to see the flower in its home.
Gary R. Smith
Well-Known Member
Blame my wife...
I'm starting to worry that the 18" stalk is getting rather top heavy.
