Advise please, what i am missing here?

[khussein]

Hi,
I am trying to improve my skills, so i will be happy by your advice and comments.
This is my first steps.

[Donald]

I don't think you are missing very much at all. That is a very good image.

You will see that I have placed it into your message, rather than it just sitting as an attached thumbnail. In order to be able to do this, please do read this thread, which gives you all the information you need to be able to post images - HELP THREAD: How can I post images here?

[Hansm]

Hi,

The subject it self it captured very well.
However the background is attracting to much attention. (a little to "crowded" not sure if this is correct English)
Also give the image a little extra contrast by applying a s-shape curve in Post processing and crop it a little to get the subject out of the center.
Finally put a border around it as a finishing touch.

[khussein]

I don't think you are missing very much at all. That is a very good image.

You will see that I have placed it into your message, rather than it just sitting as an attached thumbnail. In order to be able to do this, please do read this thread, which gives you all the information you need to be able to post images - HELP THREAD: How can I post images here?

Thank you i will do this in my next thread .

[Stagecoach]

Hi, as already mentioned the background is too busy and detracts from the main subject, otherwise the composition is fine although would benefit from moving it off centre.

There is also scope for basic levels adjustment, increasing contrast and some sharpening although this will also emphasise the background.

I can see no exif data in the pic so it is difficult to determine if you could have blurred the background more by increasing the aperture. May be worthwhile posting the shooting data.

Regards, Grahame

[khussein]

Hi,

The subject it self it captured very well.
However the background is attracting to much attention. (a little to "crowded" not sure if this is correct English)
Also give the image a little extra contrast by applying a s-shape curve in Post processing and crop it a little to get the subject out of the center.
Finally put a border around it as a finishing touch.

Hi Hans,
Thanks,for the remarks.
About the background is it a matter of depth of field or other issue so i can consider next time.

best regards .
Khalid

[Soozie B]

I can see no exif data in the pic so it is difficult to determine if you could have blurred the background more by increasing the aperture. May be worthwhile posting the shooting data.

Can you please explain what exit data is?

[khussein]

I can see no exif data in the pic so it is difficult to determine if you could have blurred the background more by increasing the aperture. May be worthwhile posting the shooting data.

Regards, Grahame

Hi, Grahame
Here is the EXIF data
f-10 at 1/400
ISO-100
with focal lenght 50mm
I used spot metering with standard 18-55 lens.
When i try to increase the aperture it came dim while i used shutter priority.
Best regards.

[Donald]

Soozie

EXIF (Exchangeable image file format) data is all the 'stuff' that's embedded in a data file, as well as the picture. So, when you take a photograph, there's a whole lot of information gets recorded as well as the actual scene your photographing. For example, if you can see it, there will be information about the make of camera the type/size of lens, the shutter speed, the aperture, the metering mode used, and so on.

Now, some people never bother about this sort of stuff, but since we're serious amateurs we tend to like to be able to see it. It gives us information about how pictures were made.

Now ........ in many cases, when people are post processing their pictures, that EXIF data gets carried along in the file and when the picture eventually makes it up onto somewhere like here at CiC, the EXIF information is embedded within it. So, if you have a web browser that can do it, you can right click on the picture and in the pop up window you'll get an option saying something like 'View EXIF data'. Do that and, hey presto, there it all is right down to the time of day the photograph was captured.

I use Netscape Browser. With that you can download a little add-on that allows me to look at Exif data from other people's pictures ... if the data is embedded in the picture. If it's not, I can't.

Some post-processing software strips out the EXIF data. For example, I use the GIMP instead of something like Photoshop. The GIMP strips out that info, so people can't right-click on any of my pictures and see the EXIF info. That's why I always note the basics (shutter speed, aperture, etc) at the bottom of anything I post on here.

Hope that helps.

[Soozie B]

Hi Donald. The minute I saw the information above your post I clicked. I just didn't know that's what is was called. It's the acronyms that confuse us humble novices hehe.

[Donald]

I note that both Hans and Grahame state that the image needs to have more contrast introduced. I like it as it is. I also feel that the background helps set the subject in context and adds to the feeling of nature that is in the. I feel we see the subject in its natural setting and not removed from that just for the purposes of making a still life picture.

The important thing, however, is that we note there are various ways in which any single image can be interpreted and there is no 'right' or 'wrong'. There are, of course, certain 'accepted norms' and practices that we tend to believe are appropriate, but at the end of the day, the only 'right' version is the one that the photographer decides upon. Others may not agree, but if the image represents what the photographer wished to capture and convey, then that is what matters.

What we do need is the ability to 'see' the final image and the knowledge and skills to be able to produce that. In other words, we should not be satisfied if we can only produce one type of image because we do not know how to produce any other type.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Khalid, thanks for posting the shooting data.

Firstly, Donald makes a very valid point in that there is no right or wrong way in producing a picture and although there are certain generalised standard 'norms' the final effect is rightfully down to what the photographer wants.

Having said that, in my personal opinion I would have preferred to see the background more blurred so to have been less of a distraction. From your shooting data it was taken at f10 so there would have been scope to increase aperture but at the cost of reducing the speed unless you upped the ISO if you had wanted to isolate the subject more from the background. To achieve your required aperature it may have been preferable to use 'aperture priority' or 'manual'.

As always it's difficult to critique a picture and also advise of possible 'procedure' improvements without knowing roughly the knowledge level of the photographer so please forgive me if I am stating the obvious above.

Regards, Grahame

[Hansm]

@ Donald:
I agree 100% that there is no right or wrong.
Khalid asked what he was missing and when looking to the posted image, personally I would add some contrast. So I posted my comment and adjusted image. This does not mean that I'm right and the original is wrong. It just shows is the potential of the original.

[Donald]

I think it is a good thing about this forum is that those of us with some experience are able to discuss different ideas and options so that both we and those who are less experienced, can have our knowledge and skills extended and our views challenged in a constructive way. This is, I believe, the only way that we extend knowledge and in all cases, is a very good thing.

[khussein]

From your shooting data it was taken at f10 so there would have been scope to increase aperture but at the cost of reducing the speed unless you upped the ISO if you had wanted to isolate the subject more from the background. To achieve your required aperature it may have been preferable to use 'aperture priority' or 'manual'.

As always it's difficult to critique a picture and also advise of possible 'procedure' improvements without knowing roughly the knowledge level of the photographer so please forgive me if I am stating the obvious above.

Regards, Grahame

Hi,Grahame
That explanation exactly what i need. Sorry for confusing you all but i am still work with (Try & Error theory) to improve my ability and skills.

Regards for you all .

[Stagecoach]

Hi Khalid, no need to apologise for confusing us, we are all glad to help and try and come up with solutions that assist each other. This is primarily a 'learning' site and some of us that try to help are also learning at the same time.

Going back to your original post of which started with 'what am I missing here ?' perhaps my first question should have been to ask you what you consider is missing or what you wished to achieve with the result.

Regards, Grahame

[jcuknz]

If you duplicate the image and blur the top layer you can then erase the blurred flower in the top layer to reveal the sharp version of the flower in the bottom layer. Even though perhaps the style of the flower is a multi-bloom I find the cluster of blooms un attractive compared to one or three blooms. Odds are good, evens are wrong, is the guideline I follow.

What you have seems a satisfactory record of the plant. A closer more selective composition with a better background could be a photo suitable for exhibition, what-have-you.

[MilT0s]

Khussein apart from all the post-production tricks others suggested what you could have had for your main subject "pop" from the background is to have used a flash. The build in flash of your camera (if any) is more (?) than sufficient. The key idea here is that a small flash burst can illuminate the main flower which is close to the camera but not the "stuff" in the background improving the contrast. This could work under any condition, even under bright sun. The downside is that you have to be careful not to produce any bad looking shadows.

However I have to warn you that even though it sounds simple flash techniques are another huge world which some claim is a difficult one.

[khussein]

Going back to your original post of which started with 'what am I missing here ?' perhaps my first question should have been to ask you what you consider is missing or what you wished to achieve with the result.

Regards, Grahame

Hi Grahame, i appreciate your assistant.
Actually i was worry that the focus was not perfect in the subject and in the other hand i am wondering if the spot metering is suitable for the subject in those cases, i was trying hard to isolate the subject from the background but i was not sure about how can i achieve that through the camera settings.
But you helped me already when you mention the feature i should consider .

Best Regards.

[khussein]

Khussein apart from all the post-production tricks others suggested what you could have had for your main subject "pop" from the background is to have used a flash. The build in flash of your camera (if any) is more (?) than sufficient. The key idea here is that a small flash burst can illuminate the main flower which is close to the camera but not the "stuff" in the background improving the contrast. This could work under any condition, even under bright sun. The downside is that you have to be careful not to produce any bad looking shadows.

However I have to warn you that even though it sounds simple flash techniques are another huge world which some claim is a difficult one.

Hi MilTos,
It didn't cross my mind to use the flash, because it was a bright sunny day, but you made a good point i should consider later on.
Thanks.
Best Regards.
Khalid.