To go for camera/lens only is quite a good way to go, as this is exactly what distinguishes photography from photoshopography. Photoshop still is good for concluding about what should/could have been done better at shooting time. In this case you could also wait for another time of the day, I guess, when the shadow gets out of the way. BTW, if you knew about "dun on the camera" why didn't you clean that first? In general, if the problems are known one should correct them first, and if this isn not possible one should rather postpone the shot for some other time.
cheers,, yip it did lack the contrast as i like contrast,, that was dun on the camera, i havent edited the photo, and yip the background got in the way,, hehe, i was to bussy lookin at the center of the flower, i whanted to get closer for the macro but the camera shadow was coming in dam! so im gonna make me a macro light soon,, and my orange filter came in today so there will be better contrast in my next B/W,s not interested in adjusting it on the computer at this time, i like to get it done on the camera as natural as i can with out editing :)
It lacks some more contrast in its softer look, The King, but this also introduced some support for fragility of the flower. The nice close-up worked also well as a tight composition this way. I guess that for absolute "integrity" it should either avoid all inclusions of the background and go for the more typical macro look, or include more of the background in some other angle that would keep the flower as important in a wide angle close-up.
The low contrast and the whole exposire balance are also good for making the pixelated "double-edges" much much less disturbing. I have the impression that there has been some small camera shake or motion of the flower when I see it with maximized contrast. (Attachment.)
0 
