I don't think I would have considered putting this up if my wife hadn't walked by as I was browsing through some older images. "Did you use that one? You should". So I have. That said, she doesn't much like the way I've processed it. To her mind, and I quote, "floral erotica should have more depth and texture". So, there are two versions of this shot: this one, that I like, and another one (which I really don't care for) that's more to her taste:

.../archives/no_its_a_tulip.php

In this case I suspect that you'll prefer my version, but whenever I've said that in the past I've been wrong, so feel free to tell me that as usual my wife knows best ;-)

Update: The version that's up now is a bit sharper than the one I originally posted. The version that's up now is my second attempt at sharpening this image and is quite a bit sharper than the first one I put up.

capture date
camera
lens
aperture
shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
ISO
flash
image quality
RAW converter
cropped?
12.33pm on 23/3/05
Canon 20D
EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
f/4.5
1/60
aperture priority
+0.0
evaluative
100
no
RAW
C1 Pro
minor
<<< prev / latest / next >>> // 56 comments // archives + galleries + thumbs // RSS // about + blog // store + training and tutorials
AboutBlogCommissionsPhotoblogGalleriesPrintsStock imagesStoreTraining<<< hide these links 
chromasia.com
no, it's a tulip / 10 April, 2005 [click for previous image: the space between us #2]
no, it's a tulip / 10 April, 2005 [click for next image: party politics #1]
Check out my initial review of the Fujifilm XT-1 here
© 2003–14 • all rights reserved