Pretty Flower - pity about the DOF

[xpatUSA]

Once again, I learn the same old lesson - the closer you shoot - the less the DOF . . . :



. . . and the other lesson: changing from a 1.7 crop camera to 1.5 crop gets you a bit less DOF anyway.

So, next time, I'll probably shoot the Sigma SD1M in HI res (4704px wide) from further away instead of LO (2336px wide) and then crop for composition.

Comments invited, of course. Doesn't really deserve any "likes" though . . .

[Geoff F]

Looks OK, Ted.

Shooting 'full frontal' flowers like this does tend to make them appear a little 'flat' but what else can you do. An angled shot requires even more focus depth and if you aren't careful the bloom appears somewhat distorted by the angle.

Sometimes I try to include a bit of foliage to show more apparent depth but that often requires a merge of two or more focus points which of course can be a problem when doing real life outdoors photography.

When more focus depth is required I often change my macro lens to a normal general purpose lens (like my 24-70) which will focus around 8 to 10 inches and does give a lot more sharp depth. But this needs a suitably large bloom to work with; or a number of flower heads/leaves which are within that focus range.

The danger with that however, is accidentally showing too much background detail.

[Shadowman]

Very nice.

[IzzieK]

Sorry Ted...but I like this shot. The colour of the flower and all that is beautiful. I would prefer that you just concentrate on the main flower and crop off the ones at the top. This shot requires the flower to be the center of attention here, if you get what I mean..

[xpatUSA]

Sorry Ted...but I like this shot. The colour of the flower and all that is beautiful. I would prefer that you just concentrate on the main flower and crop off the ones at the top. This shot requires the flower to be the center of attention here, if you get what I mean..

Hi Izzie,

I agree to an extent. I was trying to get the main flower in sharp focus, thereby separating it from the others via DOF rather position in the frame. Looking again, the one at the top is too intrusive. The leaves are a) not real exciting and b) all equidistant below the flower, so I'm inclined to keep them as-is.

As to position, the center of the flower is deliberately placed off-center. It is actually on the crossing point of two "Golden Ratio" lines (called harmonic means in RawTherapee). The blurred flower at top right is there to give a balance to the whole image, so I won't be cropping it out.

I once read an article that complained how flower shots are always dead-center of a square image with a totally plain blurred out background, i.e. botanically perfect. The main point was that even a humble flower deserves good composition! Have since lost the link, sorry to say

[xpatUSA]

I would prefer that you just concentrate on the main flower and crop off the ones at the top. This shot requires the flower to be the center of attention here, if you get what I mean..

How about this?



I removed the nearby flowers and brought some leaves closer . . .

[DanK]

I like the image, and I agree that one way or the other, this one is probably better off center. Re the second try: I know this is totally irrational, but I prefer having more of the negative space on the bottom, just as mats, when they aren't symmetrical, are usually thicker on the bottom. It's probably no more than convention, but I usually find it more pleasing.

[IzzieK]

We all have different ways of looking at an image. And surely I like this one better for the composition. And despite of your explanation of the shot #1, I still prefer that one to be dead center. Thanks for indulging me, Ted...

How about this?



I removed the nearby flowers and brought some leaves closer . . .

[xpatUSA]

Just for Izzie, a "botanical" shot:



Processed in humble FastStone Viewer - 100% crop. +saturation, -green, reverse 'S' curve, two stage USM sharpening: rad 2.7px, amt 13; rad 0.3px, amt 23.

[NorthernFocus]

The last one is nicely done.

[Geoff F]

Yes, although possibly just a fraction more space around the sides?

[IzzieK]

Thanks Ted... I really like this rendition better of the first shot...