Another side of Floriade

asp 5 October 2007 27

Signets in Commonwealth Park (Canon EF100mm Macro, 1/250, ISO 200)(Copyright 2007)

Floriade is without a doubt a popular and colourful display of flowers. After taking some 350 shots, it was nice to take a break from photographing the tulips and bees and take a minute to capture these signets paddling in the pond at Commonwealth Park.

What's Your Opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
27 Responses to Another side of Floriade
el ......VNBerlinaV8 el ......VNBerlinaV8 11:06 pm 05 Oct 07

If you hadn’t carried on in that other thread like a complete arse-clown, you probably wouldn’t be copping so much shit,


Sammy Sammy 10:21 pm 05 Oct 07

Bloody hell, talk about a dummy spit.

I guess you’ve taken your bat and ball, and gone home.

As of 10:17pm the image is AWOL.

asp asp 9:13 pm 05 Oct 07

of existing posts, I count 1 about the technical aspects of the image and two (appreciated ones) about the ABC gallery.
The rest are comments about watermarking, Danman, eating swans and snide comments about how many shots I took.

Last time I posted photographs (excluding the illustrations), most comments referred to the images them selves, peoples opinion of the content and constructive criticism. Sure, RiotACT isn’t a photography forum, but at least one could expect proper comments.

sepi sepi 7:11 pm 05 Oct 07

If you want close up shots of tulips the tulip farm on the federal hwy is the place to go. It costs 10.00 so is far less crowded than floriade, and you can get a whole bed of tulips to yourself.

jemmy jemmy 7:10 pm 05 Oct 07

Where’s the image gone?

Asp, you know this isn’t a specialist photography forum. You get the criticism that you get, you can’t complain if it doesn’t suit.

You might want to look at the DRM issue again if you’re spending money. I don’t know any that hasn’t been cracked. DRM will stop the uninformed amateurs who want to pinch a shot, but it won’t stop the dedicated who want the image.

I prefer to degrade the image. A computer monitor can’t come close to a print, so degrade it to the best a monitor can handle, but that won’t print well. Personally I look at it like putting a flyer on people’s windscreens — people get to see it, but the real quality stays with the original.

asp asp 6:41 pm 05 Oct 07


Ari Ari 6:38 pm 05 Oct 07

Yep, you’re definitely a lady-man.

asp asp 6:28 pm 05 Oct 07

This shot is on a number of forums and has attracted both praise and constructive criticism. General, nonconstructive negativity and cynicism is just annoying. As Danman said, RiotACT isn’t what it used to be. Think I’ll stick to forums which aren’t so low-brow.

Ari Ari 6:04 pm 05 Oct 07

I prefer Danman’s shots … and he doesn’t tend to boast while posting them.

asp asp 3:55 pm 05 Oct 07

correction: “Though I agree” = though i disagree.

Maelinar Maelinar 3:55 pm 05 Oct 07

Can’t take shots, take lots. That’s my motto.

asp asp 3:54 pm 05 Oct 07

According to the meta-data, the shutter speed was 1/250. Though I agree, I think it was faster and the meta data is wrong. I think it’s more 1/500 or even higher. The lens was a Canon EF100mm Macro f/2.8. Meta-data indicates it was taken at the focal length of 100mm.

Apologies for spelling, I was lazy and had Firefox spell check my post, not realising it changed cygnets to signets.

Sadly, I believe the watermark is nessesary. Last year, someone took an image of mine off a forum and entered it into a photo competition on another website I look at regularly. It won $50. Not much, but that was my $50 and prize credit I should have gotten. I don’t think anyone on here would do such a thing, but many photographers will watermark images. I am about to invest in a digital copy protection system that uses near invisable watermarking and DRM embedded in the image so that images can be protected without unsightly watermarks.

I bracket shots and due to wind, often use burst mode because the wind can move a shot out of frame often. So there are many multiples. I took 423 shots in four hours. Poor exposures were delated when the images were downloaded into Adobe Lightroom. I then ranked the images, resulting in around 10 images rated 5 stars (great/unique) and another 30 rated 4star (very good).

Swaggie Swaggie 3:43 pm 05 Oct 07

350 shots??? Hoping a couple turned out right were you? LOL

JD114 JD114 3:29 pm 05 Oct 07

(Canon EF100mm Macro, 1/250, ISO 200)(Copyright 2007)

Are you sure it wasn’t taken at 1/200 at 98mm non macro? Sure looks like it to me. It just doesn’t quite have thqat 1/250 feel about it…

And why destroy the integrity of the image with a senseless watermark? It’s not like it’s such a world-beating image that your status as a future millionaire would be compromised if someone were to use the image somewhere sometime for some purpose…

Thumper Thumper 12:19 pm 05 Oct 07

mmmm, roast baby swan….

nah, cute little things…

Sikkukkut Sikkukkut 12:18 pm 05 Oct 07


Sammy Sammy 9:00 am 05 Oct 07

I’m a little worried that the photographer appears to have drawn a crosshairs watermark over the cute little creatures.

Ari Ari 8:57 am 05 Oct 07

It’s cygnet.

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 8:55 am 05 Oct 07

ABC Floriade Gallery…
So you can win $30 of Bananas in Pyjamas or Gardening Australia DVDs?
Or have your photo shown and talked about by the disasterously provincial weatherman they’ve put on recently?


stereo henry stereo henry 8:02 am 05 Oct 07

You should upload some to the ABC’s floriade gallery.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter


Search across the site