Photos - Wild Flowers

On 17 Apr 2004 06:35:02 -0700, Icarus wrote:

>Have a look at these great pictures of Wild Flowers
>in England
>
>Comments welcome.
>
>http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Wild%20Flowers%2001.htm
>
>Icarus

Pretty looking pictures, but some technical issues. There
seems to be a lack of depth of field and some aren't
particularly sharp. What camera are you using? It would be
better if you could use a smaller aperture to maximise depth
of field. A few words to tell us what they are and what time
of year you took the pictures would be nice.

What on earth is going on with the frame of this one
http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_022.jpg and some
others? Are all those colour fringes your fault?
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the
"Westminster Gasworks"

Re: Photos - Wild Flowers

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:47:31 +0100, Paul Saunders wrote:

>The Man Himself wrote:
>
>>> It would be better if you could use a smaller aperture
>>> to maximise depth of field.
>>
>> Personally I quite like the larger apeture approach to
>> keep the subject sharp and the background slightly
>> blurry. I feel this works quite well when the background
>> is quite 'busy' (random pattern of grass, other flowers,
>> etc.) as it helps to make the main subject distinct.
>
>I'd agree on the whole, but Phil does have a point. The
>problem is that if the depth of field is too narrow, not
>enough flowers are in focus, whereas if the depth of field
>is too wide you get the background in focus too. Difficult
>to find the best balance between the two. I always found it
>a problem. Perhaps that's why I never really got into
>flower photography.

It helps to have a camera with DOF preview. Flower photog
with a digital compact is hit and miss, though the Minolta
A2 should be pretty good with the 1Mpix electronic
viewfinder and manual focus with magnification available
too. Semi macro work needs careful setup. Carrying a
portable diffuser, reflector and backgrounds, also of course
a tripod (one of those Benbo ones so you can put the camera
anywhere close to the ground is probably best) can work
wonders if you are at all serious about it.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the
"Westminster Gasworks"

Re: Photos - Wild Flowers

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:41:01 +0100, Simon Caldwell wrote:

>>
>>It would be better if you could use a smaller aperture to
>>maximise depth of field.
>
>I disagree with this. Mostly, the flower (or whatever) is
>sharp and the (less interesting) background foliage is not.
>IMHO this is how it should be, unless the background is
>also relevant in some way.

The point I ws trying to make was that some of the images
seemed to have too little DOF (not enough of the flower in
focus) or be too soft. Perhaps a bit of work in PS
wouldn't go amiss.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the
"Westminster Gasworks"

Re: Photos - Wild Flowers

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:16:34 +0100, stemc © wrote:

>
>"Phil Cook" <u-r-walk@p-t-cook.RfErMeOeVsEeCrAvPeS.co.uk>
>wrote in message
>news:qmr280dk91tvs9rkcetjdivsq3ac3trfdb@4ax.com...
>| On 17 Apr 2004 06:35:02 -0700, Icarus wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>| It would be better if you could use a smaller aperture to
>| maximise depth of field.
>
><snip>
>
>Nahhh, get in close to the flowers and minimise the depth
>of field by using a larger aperture, as the other two guys
>have suggested. There's nothing worse than a detailed and
>distracting background taking the eye off the main flower.
>The background should complimenting the flower, not
>competing against it.

The one of the yellow iris has too little DOF so little is
in focus it looks like the whole thing is out of focus, same
goes for the bog asphodel. The yew berries have distracting
out of focus leaves in front of them. There is too much
detail in the background of the teasel, despite it being out
of focus it distracts. Looking again I'd say the photos as a
whole were good snaps rather than crafted photograps.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the
"Westminster Gasworks"

Re: Photos - Wild Flowers

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:59:12 +0100, stemc © wrote:

>"Phil Cook" <u-r-walk@p-t-cook.RfErMeOeVsEeCrAvPeS.co.uk>
>wrote in message
>news:9ts58053pi18ba7rcfq20cujou32v7ff08@4ax.com...
>| On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:16:34 +0100, stemc © wrote:
>|
>| >
>| >"Phil Cook" <u-r-walk@p-t-
>| >cook.RfErMeOeVsEeCrAvPeS.co.uk> wrote in
>message
>| >news:qmr280dk91tvs9rkcetjdivsq3ac3trfdb@4ax.com...
>| >| On 17 Apr 2004 06:35:02 -0700, Icarus wrote:
>| >
>| ><snip>
>| >
>| >| It would be better if you could use a smaller aperture
>| >| to maximise depth of field.
>| >
>| ><snip>
>| >
>| >Nahhh, get in close to the flowers and minimise the
>| >depth of field by
>using
>| >a larger aperture, as the other two guys have suggested.
>| >There's nothing worse than a detailed and distracting
>| >background taking the eye off the
>main
>| >flower. The background should complimenting the flower,
>| >not competing against it.
>|
>| The one of the yellow iris has too little DOF so little
>| is in focus it looks like the whole thing is out of
>| focus, same goes for the bog asphodel.
>
>You'll have to forgive me, I'm not a flower person, so I
>don't know which images you are referring to.

Iris http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_051.jpg

Bog Asphodel
http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_043.jpg
>
>
>| The yew berries have distracting out of focus leaves in
>| front of them.
>
>I think I know which berries you mean.

These http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_020.jpg ?

>Many of my flower shots have had leaves distract like this
>once I've uploaded them to my PC. I never seem to spot them
>in the view finder though...

Taking time to look at the taking phase is all important.
>
>| There is too much detail in the background of the teasel,
>| despite it being out of focus it distracts.
>
>Well, being out of focus is a technical issue, but
>increasing or decreasing the depth of field won't help.
>
>| Looking again I'd say the photos as a whole were good
>| snaps rather than crafted photographs.
>
>Well, you'd know all about these wouldn't you? ;-)

OK then have a look at my site, not many flower photos on
there though. Say what you like, I know Mr. Dainty thinks
they are crap :-) Some pictures on there are snaps, some
have taken a lot of effort in the taking and processing in
PS. http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk

>Seriously though, you do like to critique, so why not join
>Photosig.com or Usefilm.com?

The OP asked for comments. I'm happy to oblige.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the
"Westminster Gasworks"

Re: Photos - Wild Flowers

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:23:43 +0100, Paul Saunders wrote:

>stemc © wrote:
>
>> Well, being out of focus is a technical issue, but
>> increasing or decreasing the depth of field won't help.
>
>Well decreasing the DOF will put them more out of focus
>but that in itself may not make them look any less
>distracting. Good bokeh would help though. Good bokeh
>gives a smoother blur, bad bokeh makes a blurred
>background look horrible. You can't change the bokeh
>though, it all depends on the lens.

The best fix in this case would be a change in viewpoint, or
a portable background.
http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_035.jpg
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the
"Westminster Gasworks"

Re: Photos - Wild Flowers

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:30:04 +0100, stemc © wrote:

>| OK then have a look at my site not many flower photos on
>| there though
>
>I didn't see any I'm afraid.

There are a couple, but they are flowers in the landscape.

http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/...s/381ae564.jpg http://www.p-t-
cook.freeserve.co.uk/blumtns/381ae579.jpg

>| Say what you like
>
>I'm just joking Phil, relax my friend! ;-)

I know you are, and I'm deadly serious!
>
>| I know Mr. Dainty thinks they are crap :-) Some pictures
>| on there are snaps, some have taken a lot of effort in
>| the taking and processing in PS. http://www.p-t-
>| cook.freeserve.co.uk
>
>Yes, some nice photos there, well done.
>
>I particularly enjoyed this one, though I understand that
>you probably never took it yourself: http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/Feb04/me-
>hourn.jpg

Ah but I did, I cart a lightweight tripod about with me.
Actually that is one of my better self portraits, they
usually come out terrible.
>
>But also enjoyed these ones:
>
>http://mysite.freeserve.com/phil_spix/Oct03/food.jpg A bit
>out of focus, but nice composition!

That was a snap. I think the autofocus failed due to dim
light, more dark than light.

>http://mysite.freeserve.com/phil_spi...3/tnf-tent.jpg
>Nice one!

Another snap.

>http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/Feb04/hiding.jpg I've
>got a shot similar to this from Malham.

Carefully crafted photograph.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the
"Westminster Gasworks"