A bit of telephoto / macro practice on a pretty blossom

[JBW]

[Rita]

A beautiful flower. I like the texture you have in it. Whites seem to loose texture in my images.

[JBW]

A beautiful flower. I like the texture you have in it. Whites seem to loose texture in my images.

i have found that if I underexpose the shot just a bit that the white often gets some nice shadows and textures. In GIMP there is a colour balance option that allows me to adjust mid-tones, shadows and highlights. A touch of blue often brings out the white texture as well.

[IzzieK]

I love the backlighting inside the flower and the petals around it looks as crisp as my lettuce. Dang! I can't find the right word again...this is what I get for getting up too early...

[JBW]

I love the backlighting inside the flower and the petals around it looks as crisp as my lettuce. Dang! I can't find the right word again...this is what I get for getting up too early...

Up semi early was a requirement for this shot. The back-lighting comes from the sun well before noon.

[Kodiak]

i have found that if I underexpose the shot just a bit that the white often gets some nice shadows and textures.

Brilliant EV thinking Brian!

With this choice of AoV, this EV situation is often present and you got it right!
…remains the PoF and the DoF which, from ISO 100 and ƒ7.1, could have been
cranked up to ISO 800 and ƒ16isch with no draw back!

Well done!

[JBW]

Brilliant EV thinking Brian!

With this choice of AoV, this EV situation is often present and you got it right!
…remains the PoF and the DoF which, from ISO 100 and ƒ7.1, could have been
cranked up to ISO 800 and ƒ16isch with no draw back!

Well done!

I have yet to explore the realm of ISO but perhaps now is the time.

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured.

[Dave Humphries]

from ISO 100 and ƒ7.1, could have been
cranked up to ISO 800 and ƒ16isch with no draw back!

Hi Kodiak,

I would agree if Brian were shooting with a traditional FF or DX/APS-C DSLR, but he isn't, which you may not have realised.

I don't believe the Fuji S4200 is capable of f/16, removing the need for a higher iso to achieve a narrower aperture (for greater DoF).
Of course, the noise at iso 800 on this "smaller sensor" camera may also be a drawback.

However, I appreciate the advice was well intentioned and do not wish to cause harm by mentioning this.


Hi Rita,

Whites seem to loose texture in my images.

The key, as Brian has said, is not to over expose images, if the white is a relatively small amount of the total frame area, this can easily happen unless you adjust accordingly with -EC (negative Exposure Compensation) if shooting on Auto or Aperture/Shutter Priority - or just reduce the exposure, if shooting Manual.

UPDATE: I just had a look at your more from the zoo thread and note from the EXIF you do shoot Manual, and also that I would have exposed shots #1 and #3 there by a good 2/3 a stop less, to get more detail in the crane's white plumage - as the histograms do show signs of channel clipping.

Cheers, Dave

[DanK]

A nice capture. Good use of backlighting, which makes the flower more interesting.

Dave beat me too it: I saved my note and saw that he had written much the same as I had. I doubt you can get to 800 without substantial noise, from what little I have read about that particular camera. Of course, you can clean up noise in PP, but at the cost of loss of detail. I suggest you find a couple of things that don't move, to give yourself time, and then do a series of shots at ISO 100, 200, 400, and 800. Pick at least one image with a lot of detail and another, like this, with a fairly uniform surface. You'll then have the data you need to know how much you can push the camera. The noise will also be more apparent when you crop substantially, because that is in effect like a digital zoom--you are enlarging to fill the frame--and one of the things you are enlarging is the blobs of color and luminance noise.

I agree with Dave: you have to be very careful not to overexpose with flower shots. However, I don't think you did in this case. I dropped your image into Photoshop and pulled the whites down with a curves tool. Except where the image goes out of focus in the back, the detail seems still to be there.

[JBW]

A nice capture. Good use of backlighting, which makes the flower more interesting.

Dave beat me too it: I saved my note and saw that he had written much the same as I had. I doubt you can get to 800 without substantial noise, from what little I have read about that particular camera. Of course, you can clean up noise in PP, but at the cost of loss of detail. I suggest you find a couple of things that don't move, to give yourself time, and then do a series of shots at ISO 100, 200, 400, and 800. Pick at least one image with a lot of detail and another, like this, with a fairly uniform surface. You'll then have the data you need to know how much you can push the camera. The noise will also be more apparent when you crop substantially, because that is in effect like a digital zoom--you are enlarging to fill the frame--and one of the things you are enlarging is the blobs of color and luminance noise.

I agree with Dave: you have to be very careful not to overexpose with flower shots. However, I don't think you did in this case. I dropped your image into Photoshop and pulled the whites down with a curves tool. Except where the image goes out of focus in the back, the detail seems still to be there.

Finding something in our garden that doesn't move is limiting in our garden but certainly doable. Rocks, lichen, moss, are all in abundance. I will start playing with the ISO tomorrow.

[Kodiak]

…which you may not have realised.

You are absolutely right!
I have no specific knowledge about any other cameras and lenses then
the gear I am currently using and I am not aware of all the wide array
of makes, models, and specific characteristics …too many! That said,
I am sorry if my post was out of place.

However, I… do not wish to cause harm by mentioning this.

In no way… I'm grateful!

[JBW]

You are absolutely right!
I have no specific knowledge about any other cameras and lenses then
the gear I am currently using and I am not aware of all the wide array
of makes, models, and specific characteristics …too many! That said,
I am sorry if my post was out of place.



In no way… I'm grateful!

Kodiak, your comments have encouraged me to explore a new part of my camera. I can't use it the way you suggested but I can play wity the settings to see what my camera can do. You did good.

[Kodiak]

Kodiak, your comments have encouraged me to explore a new part of my camera. I can't use it the way you suggested but I can play wity the settings to see what my camera can do. You did good.

You are very generous, Brian! …and with good spirit too.

[Dave Humphries]

However, I don't think you did in this case.

I agree, but I muddied the waters by combining two replies in one AND talking about someone else's pictures in a different thread, being over exposed!

Sorry, me bad!

(fix one confusion and create another, ho hum)

Also - thanks Kodiak

oops; just done it again!!!

[JBW]

I agree, but I muddied the waters by combining two replies in one AND talking about someone else's pictures in a different thread, being over exposed!

Sorry, me bad!

(fix one confusion and create another, ho hum)

Also - thanks Kodiak

oops; just done it again!!!

luckily with how I tend to use the title bar i am in no position to complain Besides which this is a forum composed of very creative people and sometimes things need to go along different paths at the same time.