Photos - Wild Flowers - Page 2

"Icarus" <john015436@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:97d9e678.0404170535.10d75a09@posting.google.com...
| Hi
|
| 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

Hi Icarus, I notice you've also got photos of Formby Point
(a local haunt to me, and some you've got some nice images
there), and Sefton Park Palm House. Where about are you
based, and what camera are you using?

Ste

Phil Cook wrote:

> There is too much detail in the background of the teasel,
> despite it being out of focus it distracts.

And thus the issue of bokeh raises its ugly head. I haven't
looked closely at the image in question, but just a
technical point. If one wants to get really serious about
this kind of photography it would be important to use lenses
with good bokeh. I never realised the importance of this
until I noticed how bad the bokeh is on my 300D's lens.
Irrelevant for landscapes though.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

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"

Phil Cook wrote:

> It helps to have a camera with DOF preview.

I've never got on with DOF previews. Usually the image is
too dark to clearly see what's in focus anyway. Still good
to have the option but not easy to use.

> 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.

At least you could see the overall effect of the aperture
on the LCD.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

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.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

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"

"Phil Cook" <u-r-walk@p-t-cook.RfErMeOeVsEeCrAvPeS.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mpu580doa1pee36ptcq0jt0feonmghts04@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:59:12 +0100, stemc © wrote:
|
<snip>

| >| 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

Well I think this one is just out of focus (assuming that
Icarus wanted the yellow parts to be in focus), so wasn't
really a DOF problem.

| Bog Asphodel
| http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_043.jpg

And the same from me again as above - if you look in the
background, there is plenty of DOP.

| >| 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 ?

No, I thought you meant this one:
http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_012.jpg
Actually, the one you were referring to looks like it has
been a screen grab from a video recorder? Is it Icarus? If
so, that would explain why some are out of focus. Saying
that though, I've browsed through your website and there's
plenty of good sharp shots there.

| >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.

True.

| >| 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

I already have, that's why I made the comment above!!! ;-)
...didn't you see my wink above though, I was just joking!!!
;-) ;-) ;-)

| not many flower photos on there though

I didn't see any I'm afraid.

| Say what you like

I'm just joking Phil, relax my friend! ;-)

| 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

But also enjoyed these ones:

http://mysite.freeserve.com/phil_spix/Oct03/food.jpg A bit
out of focus, but nice composition! http://mysite.freeserve.com/phil_spix/Oct03/tnf-
tent.jpg Nice one! http://www.p-t-
cook.freeserve.co.uk/Feb04/hiding.jpg I've got a shot
similar to this from Malham.

;-) ;-) ;-)

| >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.

I know the OP asked for comments, but that's not what I was
saying. I was just observing that you often give critiques
to photos, and as far as I know, you don't use websites such
as Photosig or Usefilm. So I was just suggesting these
websites as you might like them, if you hadn't looked at
them already.

| --
| Phil Cook

Ste

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c5uv6n$8qh$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
| 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.

Yes, it's either in focus or not. You don't get points for
being close or closer (unless being out of focus was an
effect which was desired), so that's why I said DOF doesn't
help (IMO).

| 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.

I've had both good and bad bokeh from my Fuji and Canon
digital cameras, so I reckon it must also depend on the
conditions etc.

| Paul

Ste

> > It helps to have a camera with DOF preview.

True, although trial and error is better, as it leads to
'experience'. Better to get some flowers from a florist and
play around to your hearts content at home. Even easier for
those with digital. I don't bother with DOF preview anymore
as I *know* what my DOF is going to be at various apertures
from 'experience'.

> I've never got on with DOF previews. Usually the image is
> too dark to clearly see what's in focus anyway. Still good
> to have the option but not easy to use.

With DOF, the viewfinder is only really so dark as to be
useless when using a small aperture (f16 to f32), in which
case DOF isn't *as* critical, as the DOF is much wider. With
floral portraits and macro it is generally more
aesthetically pleasing to have a narrow DOF (as discussed in
this thread - having a background OOF removes distractions
that take the eye away from the main subject) - the large
aperture required lets plenty of light in, so the viewfinder
is darkened considerably when using a DOF preview feature.

For example, for floral portraits and macro I generally use
apertures from f2.8 to f5.6 (f8 occasionally) - at these
apertures the change in brightness of the viewfinder when
using DOF preview is so small as to be negligible.

As for the OP's photos... they certainly won't win any
awards (and I'm sure the OP knows that), but they are happy
record shots of a pleasant day out, and my thanks to the OP
for sharing them!

Cheers,

Michael S

Following up to Icarus

>Comments welcome.

I would like to see the page less cluttered with stuff other
than the photos to give a strong initial impact.
--
Mike Reid Wasdale picture gallery
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/waspics.htm" (see website
for email)

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"

Ste

Thanks for the compliments. I must say it is great the
postive replies and critism I have had from everyone.

My favourite photo from Formby Point is :-

http://y2u.co.uk/%26002_Images/Formb...int/Formby_Po-
int_25.jpg

From Sefton Palm House is :-

http://y2u.co.uk/%26002_Images/Sefto...0Palm%20House-
/Palm_House_16.jpg

I explain my cameras and other photos on :-

http://y2u.co.uk/%26002_Images/Photos%2001.htm

Peace

Icarus


"stemc ©" <ste@sm9sm9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<4082fa68$0$3915$fa0fcedb@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>...
> "Icarus" <john015436@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:97d9e678.0404170535.10d75a09@posting.google.com...
> | Hi
> |
> | 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
>
> Hi Icarus, I notice you've also got photos of Formby Point
> (a local haunt to me, and some you've got some nice images
> there), and Sefton Park Palm House. Where about are you
> based, and what camera are you using?
>
> Ste

Ste & Phil Cook

Thanks for your comments.

The problem as I see it is that I do not take time with my
photography. It is much a hit and miss affair with me. I
tend to take photos on the fly.

I will have to get a good quality tripod to make sure of
better focus and a bigger mega pixel camera and one where I
can control depth of field.

I do not pretend the photos are top quality but saying
that I enjoy taking them and many people appear to have
had some pleasure looking at some of the beautiful wild
flowers of England.

No I did not use a screen grab from a video :-)

Peace

Icarus

---------------------------------------------------
http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_051.jpg
http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_043.jpg
http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_020.jpg
http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_012.jpg

http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/Feb04/me-
hourn.jpg
http://mysite.freeserve.com/phil_spix/Oct03/food.jpg ttp://mysite.freeserve.com/phil_spix/Oct03/tnf-
tent.jpg http://www.p-t-
cook.freeserve.co.uk/Feb04/hiding.jpg

In article
<97d9e678.0404190815.3e83019f@posting.google.com>, Icarus
<john015436@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>I will have to get a good quality tripod to make sure of
>better focus and a bigger mega pixel camera and one where I
>can control depth of field.

Something to consider - even with the mostest sturdiestest
tripod in the world - watch out for the plants moving in the
breeze :-)
--
Bill Grey http://www.billboy.co.uk

stemc © wrote:

> I've had both good and bad bokeh from my Fuji and Canon
> digital cameras, so I reckon it must also depend on the
> conditions etc.

I thought it was a fixed characterisic of the lens, but
maybe it changes with different zoom lengths.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749