# 3 Floral Photos for C&C Please!



## mjhoward (Feb 14, 2012)

I took a few of the obligatory Valentine's flower photos and would like some Critique, Comments, and Criticism please!  I'd like the good and the bad, I'm trying to improve so anything is greatly appreciated.  Oh and if anyone can identify the technical name of any of these flowers, please post the names.  Thanks!

1.






2.





3.


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 15, 2012)

Nothing?  Nada?  Would it help if I said I had my first wedding shoot tomorrow and all I have is my kit lens and pop up flash??


----------



## MReid (Feb 15, 2012)

Are these sooc?
Levels adjust would help them and they don't look tack sharp....some unsharp mask maybe.

Should be good for the wedding with that kit....the main thing is to not spend a lot of time practicing or studying....better to go into it with an open mind.....


----------



## cannpope (Feb 15, 2012)

Love the shots.   I'm getting ready to order that Tokina.   I sure hope it doesn't disappoint!


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 15, 2012)

MReid said:


> Are these sooc?
> Levels adjust would help them and they don't look tack sharp....some unsharp mask maybe.
> 
> Should be good for the wedding with that kit....the main thing is to not spend a lot of time practicing or studying....better to go into it with an open mind.....



They are not exactly SOOC, I had to edit out some sensor dust spots.  Other than that, they pretty much are.  The 'not tack sharp' may be due to some of them being at f/32 to get the DOF I wanted on some of them.  I tried keeping at f/16 but some were just too shallow.

BTW, I don't have a wedding shoot tomorrow... I was just poking fun at the fact that those seem to be the only types of posts that get a lot of response.


----------



## Joel_W (Feb 15, 2012)

My main photographic focus is florals these days. Not so much macro to the extent you've gone, but I do like those type of pictures more often then not. 

Picture 1 suffers from the same points that so many of my Daisy shots suffer from. The yellows aren't crisp, just too muted in tone, and the white petals aren't very white.  Hence, there isn't any pop. Nothing that you did, it's Mother Nature. Picture 2 is a macro shot of a two stamen flower. Not very interesting as the rest of the flower is out of focus, so the stamen has to carry ones interest, and unfortunately, it doesn't for me. Now picture 3, here's a winner. Just a super composition to start with. The soft pastel colors of the petals are superb, contrasted perfectly with the muted yellow, which greatly benefited from the brighter yellow on the outside, and the brownish/rust color on the very center.  Your exposure seems just a tad brighter, which really helps.


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 15, 2012)

Joel, thanks very much for the detailed feedback, I really appreciate it.  I may go back and try to make some adjustments in post to these as you've outlined since these were all shot in RAW.  #2 was actually one of the ones that I spent the most time on, trying to get some diagonal lines (with the stamen and petals), getting the right combination of magnification/DOF (which was difficult, I was trying to exclude outside backgrounds and distractions), and getting the light right (I handheld the light with my DIY diffuser here: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7031/6585451331_d2647189a2_z.jpg).  So after realizing the crazy shallow DOF and the amount of relative depth to the flower, I decided it may be best to try and pass it off as a bit of an abstract type photo.


----------



## MReid (Feb 15, 2012)

If you go past F16 you start to lose sharpness with minimal gain in depth of field...not worth the trade off.
Use a tripod and focus on the point you want to be the subject of your photo. Then do a levels adjustment and sharpen and you should be good to go.


----------



## paigew (Feb 15, 2012)

Joel_W said:


> My main photographic focus is florals these days. Not so much macro to the extent you've gone, but I do like those type of pictures more often then not.
> 
> Picture 1 suffers from the same points that so many of my Daisy shots suffer from. The yellows aren't crisp, just too muted in tone, and the white petals aren't very white.  Hence, there isn't any pop. Nothing that you did, it's Mother Nature. Picture 2 is a macro shot of a two stamen flower. Not very interesting as the rest of the flower is out of focus, so the stamen has to carry ones interest, and unfortunately, it doesn't for me. Now picture 3, here's a winner. Just a super composition to start with. The soft pastel colors of the petals are superb, contrasted perfectly with the muted yellow, which greatly benefited from the brighter yellow on the outside, and the brownish/rust color on the very center.  Your exposure seems just a tad brighter, which really helps.



Wow really? I love #1, its my favorite one! I also like #3....agree with joel about #2


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 15, 2012)

MReid said:


> If you go past F16 you start to lose sharpness with minimal gain in depth of field...not worth the trade off.
> Use a tripod and focus on the point you want to be the subject of your photo. Then do a levels adjustment and sharpen and you should be good to go.



I used a tripod with live view to focus and I also applied a very light unsharp mask.  IMO sometimes people take the unsharp mask a bit too far and it looks processed.  I realize that such a high f-stop starts to lose sharpness but there was a significant gain in DOF.  I have the same shot at f/16 and f/22 that I could post for you if you'd like.  The problem with the subject and the way it was composed is that flower is relatively deep.  I'm going to try and shoot a different angle for it tonight.


----------



## Cpi2011 (Feb 15, 2012)

Great stuff wonderful set of photographs i love the first and 3rd images very much.


----------



## Joel_W (Feb 16, 2012)

paigew said:


> Joel_W said:
> 
> 
> > My main photographic focus is florals these days. Not so much macro to the extent you've gone, but I do like those type of pictures more often then not.
> ...



Paigew, picture 1 is more of a love/hate relationship with mother nature. The composition is excellent. It's just my personal feelings about how the muted tones interact with each other. Compare pic 1 color tones to those of Pic 3. which are vibrant, and just more alive, while pic 1 is subdued and muted. That's all I'm saying. It just doesn't evoke the same feelings that pic 3 does.


----------



## MReid (Feb 16, 2012)

If it isn't sharp the extra depth of field is not worth it.....expecially with macro....it has to be tack sharp somewhere in the frame.


----------



## JessicaLynn (Feb 16, 2012)

i love the colors of #3!! I think u will do just fine at ur wedding shoot =D


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 16, 2012)

Ok, so I re-shot #2 and #3... would like some opinions on the rework.  Thanks!

Re-shoot #2:





Re-shoot #3:





Original #3:





Unfortunately, the upload has oversaturated these a bit, particularly the first one.  I'm working on trying to figure out why that is, so keep that in mind when looking at these.


----------



## Joel_W (Feb 17, 2012)

Picture 3 didn't need a re-due. But your re-due you added a 2nd flower in the background that detracts from the main flower. IMHO, the 1st picture is much stronger, which btw, I thought was the best of the original 3 pictures. 

The re-due of picture 1 still has too shallow of DOF. Here's an example of how I usually approach this:




DSC_0035 by jaw101, on Flickr


----------

