I would drop a thin shadow from the flower (or flowers) on the frame to give more sense of a space to it. I am not sure where I stand here; it is a good illustration, but this is a photography site - does this image pertain in any way to a good photography (light, shadows, angle, composition, overall impression, etc.) technique/s? Is it in any way educational? It probably is. To me PhotoShoping always tells what to look for next time I am about to press that shutter - but again, I am going back and fourth on where to draw the line with it. Interesting what (and how) others will comment. Would you mind posting the link with this comment (and image) to MyOlympus board? I saw there was a thread on the subject somewhere last week.

Here are some ideas for 'Out of Bounds' illustrations (do not know if you ever posted there :>)) where you can get more appreciative comments on your work.

http://www.worth1000.com/galleries.asp?rel=Out+of+Bounds&display=photoshop&id=8313

For those who do not see the entire link; go to;

http://www.worth1000.com/

-> Galleries ... "O" ... look for "Out of Bounds"

-

Sergey Green wrote:
> Would you mind posting the link with this comment (and
> image) to MyOlympus board? I saw there was a thread on the subject somewhere last week.
>

Give me a chance to drop that shadow and then feel free to make that link.

I don't condem or condone this sort of thing. It's all personal taste to me.

bert

>
> I don't condem or condone this sort of thing. It's all personal taste to me.
>
> bert
>

I think I agree with you as I look at it again and again. And Shelley has a good point - it is a digital photo site and it should, therefore, encompass all work that is related to digital photography.

Here is another example;

http://myolympus.org/document.php?id=137

There is simply no way the image will look so nice out of camera! And it does look to some degree realistic (even after I have seen Grand Canyon many times) after Ather (obviously) done some work on it.

Yes, it would be interesting to see (and read) what argument those who disagree would bring once shown real examples. Time to learn PS ;)?

-

Shelley O'Connell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This works for me! Actually I was going to look up a site that Sergey posted as I wanted to
> experiment myself. (Thanks, Sergey)
>
>
> I think this photo is well composed and I like the large almost macro foreground with the
> depth of field of the background. The graphic treatment just enhances it and I find it does
> not diminish the fact that it is an interesting photo. Personally I think a digital photo
> site should encompass all work that is related to digital photography.
> (I posted my opinion about this on the MyOlympus board if anyone is interested in adding to
> it. There have been some interesting content there recently IMO)
>
> Regards,
> Shelley
>


I'm totally with you on this Shelly. Digital photography is not film photagraphy, or at least it has a different and richer (IMHO) set of things that can be done with it. I love to see the medium stretched.

Jim

Very nice. It is almost 3-D

Richard Ociepka wrote:
> Very nice. It is almost 3-D
>

So Richard,
Would this be allowed to pass for the contest?
-

What a beautiful picture you made out of your first post.
Whis I could make something like this , hope to fins some tutorials about this subject "out of bounds"
The frame and the flowers are just great....

Well done..