# plants, i dont get it



## bribrius (Jun 1, 2014)

so I worked on insects a little and plants today. 
I kind of, sort of see why people like the insects. 
I am still lost on how or why for the plants.

I started with simple grass, a setting sun.
I got nothing.
im sure someone could have made something out of it.
I spent more time scratching my head trying to "get it"




I tried the light going through the woods pick to and shooting into the trees the other day.
Lot of those are circulating around.
I didn't really get that either.

I am pretty sure mine aren't coming out as well as theirs.
I need to give things a shot though, even if I have doubts so I figured I would try it once.

Is there like a way and purpose to doing this kind of thing?

Feel free to pick on my pix. I felt like a moron anyway trying to figure out the concept of putting the camera down and shooting through grass.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 1, 2014)

You took pictures of weeds?

For those it is more in the details and up close, really close
unless you find yourself in a gigantic multicolored tulip patch 
where you can show a larger area
(instead of scattered ungroomed weed patches)


----------



## Ron Evers (Jun 1, 2014)

Close.




Bigger view.


----------



## sashbar (Jun 1, 2014)

You need to apply the same basic principles of composition, contrast, colors etc when shooting plants.  The advice to start with closeups is probably good, because it is easier to extract some aestetically pleasing order from the chaos that is the nature of the.. well... nature.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 1, 2014)

well, not all weeds.  but none of them are really that great... The weeds was kind of the same idea of the light through the trees kind of thinking. which didn't really work...


----------



## bribrius (Jun 1, 2014)

sashbar said:


> You need to apply the same basic principles of composition, contrast, colors etc when shooting plants. The advice to start with closeups is probably good, because it is easier to extract some aestetically pleasing order from the chaos that is the nature of the.. well... nature.
> 
> View attachment 75514



I tried that a little. And Thanks. i'll play with it again at some point, could just be something I won't really take too. Was wondering if maybe there was a secret decoder ring kind of thing..


----------



## ruggedshutter (Jun 1, 2014)

I liked 1,3 and 5 of the second series.  You have to use DOF and focus very carefully with close-up of flowers.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 1, 2014)

ruggedshutter said:


> I liked 1,3 and 5 of the second series. You have to use DOF and focus very carefully with close-up of flowers.


Thanks. And yeah, I missed. They aren't very exciting either. you think putting on a dress when shooting plants and flowers and such would help? It is making me feel a little feminine and not really going along with my work boots..


----------



## Derrel (Jun 1, 2014)

"Today, I tried writing a few paragraphs out of the first of fifty chapters of a novel that I plan on being part of a trilogy. I dunno...didn't work out all that great."

I think that's kind of a good example of what your day's photography represents...a teeny-tiny baby step in an area of photography that simply takes a lot of effort and time and sweat before anything "of substance" is created. It takes good subject matter, good lighting, and good location, as well as vision, imagination, inspiration, and skill in order to transform plants into good photographs. To use a writing analogy, today you did not write a novel, nor a novella, nor a short story, nor an essay...you wrote a grocery list, with a couple of notes added in the margins...

Thanks for showing us your efforts; I actually see promise, and I do SEE some of the things that your captured, like the nice quality of the light on the dandelions--that was some pretty lighting! But as far as you being able to "get it" as you wrote, I think it's going to take some time. And a realization that many things are more difficult than they might seem at first glance.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Jun 1, 2014)

Simplify simplify simplify!! Everything in nature has repeating structure, follow a branch on a tree from top to trunk and you will see the same pattern repeated.  When the patterns are on top of each other it becomes chaotic so find single branches and isolate them.  The idea is to make that pattern the star of the show so pay close attention to your background and how your DOF and lens choices etc...are rendering it, nervous bokeh sucks in general as does slightly blurred grass and other ground cover.  Finally light, decide what you want to achieve and pick the right light to shoot in, want to show sharp bold lines with great contrast shoot daytime with a shaded area as your background so it goes super dark, more delicate subjects and raindrop pictures shine in a delicate diffuse light.
 It's all in the details IMHO


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Jun 1, 2014)

..........


----------



## PixelRabbit (Jun 1, 2014)

I was on my ipod with my last reply so here are a couple examples...
My black and white plants set (the only set of plants I've got put together)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/judi_smelko/sets/72157634661886785/
And a couple recent ones...



Spring Branches by Judi Smelko, on Flickr






IMG_7773copperflipped by Judi Smelko, on Flickr






IMG_8038-1 by Judi Smelko, on Flickr


----------



## bribrius (Jun 1, 2014)

thanks judi, I see where you are going there.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 4, 2014)

tried again a little today with this. Not much. I have a few I think are okay.
here is one. I still have to go through the others.

it is sooc jpeg


----------



## bribrius (Jun 4, 2014)




----------



## bribrius (Jun 4, 2014)

I have more but that is quite a few. I did nothing but shoot flower for a hour. I know they aren't that great just trying to get a idea of how im doing.

couple get a little dim, I was side tracked shooting something else and didn't put the ap low enough again and didn't catch it right away, if that explains it.


----------



## pgriz (Jun 4, 2014)

A plant.  Being flirty.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 4, 2014)

pgriz said:


> View attachment 75994
> 
> A plant. Being flirty.


kinda pwetty. this plant thing isn't going very well for me . what do you think of this one?


----------



## snerd (Jun 4, 2014)

I can see that with each set you got better at it. Lesson I'm still learning............. plan ahead, take your time, fill the frame, make it sexy.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 4, 2014)

Sometimes you don't have to get so close.


----------



## pgriz (Jun 4, 2014)

Probably would be very attractive, if I were a fly...


----------



## bribrius (Jun 4, 2014)

dxqcanada said:


> Sometimes you don't have to get so close.


I mostly just shot close.  I dunno.

I shot the entire tree stump and the flower, but then I just shot the flower too. most I just shot flower ends. I dunno. no idea....


----------



## snerd (Jun 4, 2014)

bribrius said:


> what do you think of this one?
> 
> View attachment 76000



Is that a pile of crap?! Why would you post a pile of crap?!


----------



## bribrius (Jun 4, 2014)

snerd said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > what do you think of this one?
> ...


I dunno. Maybe it tells a story? I'm not doing vey well at making them "sexy".

And the crap really shouldn't be in here because I said sooc and I think I edited the crap upping the contrast a notch.


----------



## snerd (Jun 4, 2014)

bribrius said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



Hmmm...... well, I don't know if you were wanting serious replies on your photos, or were just trolling. If the latter, you sucked me in for sure. Or maybe I'm too dense to read between the lines?


----------



## bribrius (Jun 4, 2014)

snerd said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > snerd said:
> ...


geez. you aren't sucked in. why on earth would I be trolling especially taking fifty photos to do it? Read what I wrote BEFORE  "this plant thing isn't going very well for me".  I'm just working on flowers a little. Well, and other plants..


----------



## snerd (Jun 4, 2014)

Dude, your pics looked pretty good to me, and like I said, they got a little better each set. Progress. I just didn't get why you found it necessary to post a steaming pile. Whatever. Carry on.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 4, 2014)

snerd said:


> Dude, your pics looked pretty good to me, and like I said, they got a little better each set. Progress. I just didn't get why you found it necessary to post a steaming pile. Whatever. Carry on.


suppose I think I should be doing better than this. They are just stupid flowers. This is bugging me. I think my photos look like crap. Appreciate the comments and time. Thanks.


----------



## snerd (Jun 4, 2014)

We are our own worst critics. That's okay to a degree, but we have to let others guide and help us too. At least I do. I'm still pretty new to it.

ETA: plus, I'm on the **** list for posting a clown. My fear is getting the better of me!!!


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jun 5, 2014)

The water droplets on the blade of grass is actually very, very impressive. And flowers are a thing because... um... reasons. Sure. That. Science too.


----------



## Ron Evers (Jun 5, 2014)

Another example of not getting close.


----------



## mishele (Jun 5, 2014)

Weeds are beautiful!!!


----------



## runnah (Jun 5, 2014)

Just copy Mish's patented style.

Step 1: Consume copious amounts of questionable quality wine
Step 2: Whip something
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Make pretty photo


----------



## pgriz (Jun 5, 2014)

Bribrius, the principles of shooting plants, are the same as for any other subject that is not an action shot.  In no particular order:


Texture,
Repeating patterns,
colour,
Shape,
detail,
Contrast (in texture, pattern, colour, shape)
Complementary contrast
Story-telling
Relationship of subject to environment...

and so on.

The basic process is the same as for other photographic material:

Find a subject
decide what aspect of the subject is interesting (one or more of the list above)
decide on whether the relation to the environment/surroundings is important (ie, closeup or more distance or wider angle)
look for a perspective that simplifies the image to focus on the aspect you found interesting (eliminate clutter, stuff that doesn't contribute)
create an appropriate link between subject and foreground/background (angle, perspective, DOF)
light the subject so that the main aspects are highlighted (natural light, time of day, supplementary light...)
Choose an exposure that (usually) maximizes the detail in the subject or the aspect you're trying to illustrate
Process the shot to bring out the aspect you've tried to capture
Adjust the image to focus attention on the aspect (crop, adjust brightness, add/remove noise, sharpen or blur as needed)

and Voila, you'be done it.

However, it starts with the first two lines:  Find a subject, and decide what aspect you think is interesting.

Look at your first four images with with you opened up this thread.

First image of dandelion heads.  Plane of focus is on three dandelion stalks at the right of the image, with the dandelion heads at the upper right.  Other dandelion head visible at center, left, but out of focus.  Some extraneous plant in foreground on left, out of focus.  Light catches the in-focus stalks, most of the rest is in shadow.  A barely-visible (but in focus) unopened dandelion head at bottom of image.  So what can you do with that?

One idea that occurs is that you could make it a life-cycle story, where you show the unopened flower, the full ready-to-disperse head, and the empty heads (with perhaps a seed or two still holding on to the head).  
Or, you can make it a symmetry play by focusing closely on the ripe head.  Or you can decide to treat it as a shape/texture play, and using a deep-enough DOF show the way the parachutes of the seeds link up together.  Or you can make it into a story-telling play with the seeds starting to leave the "home".  But whatever angle or aspect you choose, for an image to be effective, it has to convey that aspect or story in a straightforward manner.  It should be obvious to the viewer what you saw and what you want the viewer to see.

Second image - field of dandelions.  The plane of focus is mostly on the darker part of the image in the center and foreground.  The bright streak of light (which should usually be used to highlight a subject) is away from the center, and is out of focus.  Nothing stands out.  We see a field with dandelions, like the thousand other views of dandelions we've seen.  But we don't know why we should be looking at THIS particular perspective and choice of frame.

Third image - semi-closeup with a "V" of darkness in the middle, offset a bit to the left.  Out of focus stuff on the left, in-focus jumble of dandelion stalks on the right.  Slab of light falling on the dandelions on the right, highlighting them.  So, what should we be seeing?  What aspect do you think is more important?  What do you want us to see/understand?  Not clear.

Fourth image - Three bands of colour (darker green on bottom third, a thin band of yellowish-green in middle, dark background in the upper third.  Again - what's the subject?  What aspect should we be focusing on?  What do you want the viewer to see?  What is the relevance of the location of the light?  What do you want to convey/hide by your choice of DOF?

If you then look at the two images that Ron put up, it's more obvious what he wants us to look at.  The mushroom image shows shape, and texture.  The curves of the shape of the mushroom contrast with the lines of the gills.  He put the plane of focus on the gills so that we know that's what HE was looking at and found interesting.  He also shot it in a symmetrical fashion, that allows us to recognize the rounded shape and contrast it to the lines of the gills.

In the second image, he gives us a very sharp view of a fern leaf, again emphasizing the symmetry of the leaf and the shapes.  He included enough of the background to allow us to see the environment, and the repeating theme of other fern leaves surrounding the main one.  The spot of light at the center of the main frond essentially tells us "LOOK HERE!".  The positioning of the frond in the frame is not exactly centered, so we are encouraged so shift our gaze slightly and notice the branches to the left of the frond.

Further down, we see MartinCrabtree's contribution - two images.  Both are centered (implicit message "THIS is what I found important.").  The poppy shot reveals a number of contrasts:  Colour, texture, shape.  It's also a "story" shot in showing the flower emerging from its protective shell.  Intentionally or not, the angle of the main stalk crosses the out-of-focus grass stalks in the background and creates a bit of visual tension.  The darkness of the background encourages us to stay focused on the main subject.

In the second image, he presents us with another symmetry/texture/colour play.  It is very clear where we need to be looking.  Everything that could distract us from the aspects HE chose, has been rendered dark or blurred.

So to summarize this long post - you need to find what aspect of the subject you find interesting, and then work to isolate and emphasize that aspect for your viewers.  It's as simple and complicated as that.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 5, 2014)

pgriz said:


> Bribrius, the principles of shooting plants, are the same as for any other subject that is not an action shot. In no particular order:
> 
> 
> Texture,
> ...


ugggh.

I don't find any of it interesting except the light. I don't even like flowers!!  ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't even tell the difference between a weed and a flower!


----------



## bribrius (Jun 5, 2014)




----------



## snerd (Jun 5, 2014)

Ron Evers said:


> Another example of not getting close.
> 
> 
> View attachment 76038



Ron, to me that's "close". You've "filled the frame" so to speak. My terminology probably wasn't correct. Not "macro" close in this case, just close enough to fill the frame with a good subject.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 5, 2014)

why are you trying to fill the frame at all?


----------



## snerd (Jun 5, 2014)

bribrius said:


> why are you trying to fill the frame at all?



Hmmm..... I guess I just think that something interesting in the foreground beats a lot of plain, uninteresting foreground before the subject. But that's just me, you shoot however you like. I was just trying to contribute with my opinion, not tell you how to compose.


----------



## Ron Evers (Jun 5, 2014)

Not filling the frame.

If we consider the tree as the subject, it is a minor part of the frame.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 5, 2014)

Ron Evers said:


> Another example of not getting close.
> 
> 
> View attachment 76038



That purple flower's daddy was...the mailman!!!


----------



## jkzo (Jun 6, 2014)

bribrius said:


> so I worked on insects a little and plants today.
> I kind of, sort of see why people like the insects.
> I am still lost on how or why for the plants.
> 
> ...




you can also see some of the posts of "fequency"in this regard


----------



## mmaria (Jun 6, 2014)

Derrel said:


> That purple flower's daddy was...the mailman!!!


lol for my morning. thanks Derrel


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 6, 2014)

Try finding something that you find interesting, that might help you get better photos. I think the ones of the purple irises are nice and the raindrops on the blades of grass is an interesting one. But many of these look like you were just snapping off pictures and make me wonder if you were even really seeing what you were looking at. 

I can't say after looking at the photos that it's surprising that you're not into flowers and plants If it's something that doesn't have your interest that might be what shows in the pictures compared to taking photos of something that you like.


----------

