Sinister Face

[Round Tuit]

I took this photo in late afternoon. The sun was still high in the sky but was filtered by thin high level clouds. The flower is essentially backlit but from fairly high up. My camera was mounted on my tripod approximately two feet off the ground. I used a circular polarizing filter on my 55-250mm lens. I used live view mode with high magnification to focus on the brown pistils.
I am opened to suggestions as to why the flower look so soft. There was no wind at the time and the camera was on a tripod. I did not used the mirror lockup with cable release because I did not think that it would be needed. Was I wrong? Did I simply miss my focus or is the depth of field too narrow? Should I have used a shorter lens? Did the sinister face sneeze and make the flower move!

Andre

[Mike Buckley]

Nice composition! Consider changing the green out of focus stuff in the lower right corner to black to enhance your composition.

People will be able to help you more if you provide your focal length, shutter speed and aperture as well as your approximate distance from the subject. That information has been stripped from the image file.

You mentioned that the flower is essentially backlit but it doesn't appear to me to be backlit in the slightest. I wonder if you're mistaking the glare for back lighting. The glare could probably have been minimized or eliminated if you had used a polarizer.

[Shadowman]

I'm thinking that the flower is backlit but Andre is standing at an elevated position which is casting some light onto the stem. I think it's all a matter of lighting and color and if windy flower movement which is causing the softness. I shot a similar scene this weekend at F/9 and had similar effect on my shot.

[Stagecoach]

Did I simply miss my focus

I would suggest it's as simple as that Andre.

If you look around the image you will see there are some parts that are spot on sharp, centre petal to the rear edges and leaf bottom right.

[Mike Buckley]

Dave,

I wonder if your camera has Live View. If it does, you had it on a tripod and could have easily determined sharpness by magnifying the scene and looking through all parts of it to check for sharpness. I always use manual focus and Live View when photographing a scene with the photographic characteristics of yours using a tripod.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Mike obviously didn't read your first post.

I'd say you found a focal length and f-stop at which your lens doesn't excel.
You should experiment some with it using differing settings to find out which ones will give you what you're after.

[Mike Buckley]

Mike obviously didn't read your first post.

I can confirm for you that I did read it -- twice. What makes you think otherwise?

[DanK]

I think it is likely a combination of missed focus and narrow depth of field. You need to provide the information that Mike noted.

[marlunn]

one oft forgotten item that catches me out a few times - turn of any optical stabalisation - or VR or whatever the lens manufaturer calls it if the camera is on a tripod as it can induce blur rather than remove it

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Mike:
From his post - "I used live view mode with high magnification to focus on the brown pistils."

From your post - "I wonder if your camera has Live View."

Any questions?

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, Alan! You're right that I overlooked that when I wrote my post.

[Round Tuit]

Mike,
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one to ignore part of what I read! I don't know what your excuse is but I usually blame it on having a "senior moment". We'll have to ask John what his excuse is
Back to the picture. The shot was taken about 12 feet from the flower. fl 250mm, f5.6, 1/60 sec @ ISO 100. My camera is a Canon T5i with a 1.6 crop factor. The lens was set at maximum focal length and wide opened. (I did use the polarizer).
The flower is actually much deeper than it seems because of the very long lens. What appears as glare is actually direct sunlight hitting the lower horizontal petals. The sun was behind and shone mostly through the vertical back petals.
Looks like I will have to experiment to determine if Grahame, Alan, Dan or Mark are on to something. I hope that Alan is wrong because I can't afford a better lens.
Thanks for your help.
Andre

[Round Tuit]

I'm thinking that the flower is backlit but Andre is standing at an elevated position which is casting some light onto the stem. I think it's all a matter of lighting and color and if windy flower movement which is causing the softness. I shot a similar scene this weekend at F/9 and had similar effect on my shot.

John,
Thanks for your interest. Please see my reply to Mike for more info.
Andre

[Mike Buckley]

I don't know what your excuse is but I usually blame it on having a "senior moment".

I'm finally old enough that I can use that excuse. The problem is that I've been having those moments since I was a teenager.

[Round Tuit]

Mike obviously didn't read your first post.

I'd say you found a focal length and f-stop at which your lens doesn't excel.
You should experiment some with it using differing settings to find out which ones will give you what you're after.

Alan,
I will do just that and I sincerely hope that you are wrong in you assessment of the problem.
Thank for taking the time to comment.
Andre

[Round Tuit]

I would suggest it's as simple as that Andre.

If you look around the image you will see there are some parts that are spot on sharp, centre petal to the rear edges and leaf bottom right.

Grahame,
Thank for your suggestion. I hope that you are right as this would make it easy to fix in the future.
Andre

[Round Tuit]

I think it is likely a combination of missed focus and narrow depth of field. You need to provide the information that Mike noted.

Dan,
Thanks for your comment. I will check that out. See my reply to Mike for the additional info.
Andre

[Round Tuit]

I'm finally old enough that I can use that excuse. The problem is that I've been having those moments since I was a teenager.

Me too but don't tell anybody

[Round Tuit]

one oft forgotten item that catches me out a few times - turn of any optical stabalisation - or VR or whatever the lens manufaturer calls it if the camera is on a tripod as it can induce blur rather than remove it

Mark,
I hadn't thought of that one. You might be on to something. In any case I will definitely check that whenever the tripod comes out.
Thanks
Andre

[Mike Buckley]

What appears as glare is actually direct sunlight hitting the lower horizontal petals.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Glare is a form of direct reflection, which in turn is reflection of the light source. This appears to be a direct reflection to me because all texture in those areas is lost. In other words, the surface of the petals is acting as a mirror that reflects the sunlight, which has no texture.

Vegetation commonly produces direct reflections. Even when using a polarizer, the polarizer will be effective only on the surfaces that have the proper physical relationship between the rays of sunlight and the camera. So, my guess is that your polarizer eliminated some of the glare but not all of it.

The sun was behind and shone mostly through the vertical back petals.

I don't see any black petals so I'm confused. Regardless, an object is back lit only when the subject is between the camera and the light source or something such as a mirror reflecting the light source. If the subject is transparent or translucent, the light will penetrate through the subject even if it is only translucent so long as the light source is strong enough. Flowers are usually translucent, making it possible to see sunlight penetrating through them. I see no evidence of that in this image.

Just my thinking.