# Macro HDR Flower C&C



## rfosness88 (Jul 23, 2009)

Macro shot of a flower, HDR little overdone, no tripod(hence blur) 70-300mm lens, dof little f***ed up, should have had the front in focus not the back..i have one with a good dof, but it's in TIFF format too lazy to convert it...

C&C welcome feel free to be harsh(dont hold back)


----------



## musicaleCA (Jul 23, 2009)

TIFF isn't that hard to convert from...

The DoF throws me completely. I'd say that you really needed to stop down, not just move the focal plane closer. I'd much rather see the entire flower in focus. This shot also doesn't look like it really called for HDR, which given that a flower can have a tendancy to move, and you didn't have a tripod, has likely added some ghosting and made it being OOF worse.


----------



## Sachphotography (Jul 23, 2009)

Reminds me of one of those spongy things in the ocean. The kind you see at like 8ft down where the sun still hits it good. Kinda freaky cool. 
Not really HDR though, nor is it a shot that would compliment a true HDR setup.


----------



## Jaszek (Jul 23, 2009)

I see very bad CA in this shot.


----------



## SrBiscuit (Jul 23, 2009)

yeah, but i dont think it matters in this shot...i agreed with the DOF commets...id like to see more in focus...but as for the CA and haloing...i dont mind it because i ddont see this shot as "oh hey, here's a flower" i see it more as an abstract colorful piece with a mysterious subject...and i think it's pretty sick.


----------



## three_eyed_otter (Jul 23, 2009)

The background color just doesn't work well, for me, w/the colors of the flower...I think the flower colors are great.

have a good one
3Eo


----------



## rfosness88 (Jul 23, 2009)

Thanks for all the suggestions guys!

What does CA mean?

@Three_eyed_otter what background color do you think would go well with the colors?

here is a non HDR with a depth of field that i prefer. I think i'll try later with a smaller aperture so the whole flower is in focus thanks for the suggestion.






I think the HDR added a lot, im more into art than photography...

thanks again guys!


----------



## SrBiscuit (Jul 23, 2009)

CA is chromatic aberration...just a fancy way of saying fringing...where the color changes are abrupt rather than gradual.

*edit*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration

*edit again lol*
i REALLY prefer the first image as opposed to the second.


----------



## Annamas (Jul 23, 2009)

I love the petals in the first posted pic.  Very etheral looking.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 23, 2009)

SrBiscuit said:


> but as for the CA and haloing...i dont mind it because i ddont see this shot as "oh hey, here's a flower" i see it more as an abstract colorful piece with a mysterious subject...and i think it's pretty sick.



I'm with you on that. I'll even admit that the focus problem doesn't bother me much in this case. To me it helps it as an abstract type image.


----------



## rfosness88 (Jul 23, 2009)

Thanks guys, I much prefer the first one also. Some people didn't think the HDR added much to the image so i posted a non HDR.


----------



## boogschd (Jul 23, 2009)

i love how it sort of glows


----------



## MelodyMusic (Jul 23, 2009)

It just goes to show that a lot of things we overlook on a daily basis look much more 'frightening' or 'freaky' when it's all blown up in Macro!!!! lol
I really like the first rather than the second. By the way, since I am a newbie, how do you shoot in HDR? I also have a Canon SLR.
Thanks!


----------



## rfosness88 (Jul 24, 2009)

MelodyMusic said:


> It just goes to show that a lot of things we overlook on a daily basis look much more 'frightening' or 'freaky' when it's all blown up in Macro!!!! lol
> I really like the first rather than the second. By the way, since I am a newbie, how do you shoot in HDR? I also have a Canon SLR.
> Thanks!



Works best with a tripod, Shoot 3 pictures using AEB(auto exposure bracketing i think) so you have one picture underexposed, normal shot, and an overexposed shot. Load the 3 pix into Photomatix(best program) or Photoshop(does alright). Photomatix is self explanatory. With photoshop their is an HDR option/setting i dont remember where im using CS4 i know it is also in CS3.

here is a link to some great tutorials using a few different programs
*http://tinyurl.com/dumbmofo*


----------



## Steph (Jul 24, 2009)

First of all, I am not a great fan of HDR (in fact I very rarely like so called HDR images), so take my comments with a pinch of salt.

1-I think the HDR treatment does not work for this subject. The end result shows highly saturated colours and the flower seems to glow, whereas the non-HDR version shows subdued and subtle tones. You probably did not intend to render the flower as you saw it but to me the HDR treatment went too far and did not add to the subject.

2-HDR is supposed to mean High Dynamic Range. I am NOT being sarcastic here, but, on a technical point of view, your original did not call for HDR as it doesn't have any blown highlights or blocked shadows. On the other hand, the HDR version shows some badly blown highlights at the bottom of the frame, which to me are a real eyesore. My eyes are drawn to this white patch instead of looking at the rest of the picture.

3-Personally, I find it hard to compose macro shot well. I think you did a good job at framing the flower and its position in the frame is quite pleasing to my eye. However, I think the colour of the background does not set off the flower very well in both versions. Maybe something darker in the non-HDR version and something lighter in the HDR version would work better. I am not sure.

4-DOF. As mentioned by others and yourself, this is probably a bit too shallow. DOF has a lot to do with how successful a macro shot is. A tripod will be invaluable to increase it and make sure your shot is as sharp as possible.


----------



## three_eyed_otter (Jul 24, 2009)

rfosness88 said:


> Thanks for all the suggestions guys!
> 
> What does CA mean?
> 
> ...



I like the HDR version much better as well.  As far as the background, it did not complement nor mirror the colors of the flower.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Color Matters - Design and Art - Color Theory

I think the background is something to consider when shooting macro and can be manipulated when shooting outdoors How to Make Photography Backdrops | eHow.com or in post-processing Photoshop Elements Replace Color

Remember, this all just my opinion, but backgrounds (and foregrounds) can be extremely distracting and really take away from a good photo or they can really allow the subject to "shine,"  but they should always be considered for their impact on the subject.

Example...Not that this is a great photo, but it would be much less if it didn't have the colors in the background.  In actuality, for this shot I was testing the focus range and ability of the camera lens and ended up w/a fun spiderweb.  






have a good one
3Eo


----------

