Yellow, Flower

[FootLoose]

Some kind of flower. I was attracted by the light - it's all natural - no flash. Shot in its environment. Hope you like yellowness.

Yellow Flower_M8A5194 by Foot Loose2012, on Flickr

[madcrow]

That is a great capture, love the natural light at the back.

[DanK]

Beautiful lighting, but for my taste, I would have closed down the aperture quite a bit and taken a longer exposure. the depth of field isn't sufficient for my taste; I would have wanted at least the anthers and stigma in focus.

Again it's a matter of taste, but because I like a lot of in-focus detail in flowers, I usually focus-stack images of deep flowers like this. Of course, that is hard to do outside because of wind, etc., so I do a lot of them inside.

[bje07]

Nice lighting, but I agree with Dan, f5.6 would seem too small for me too

[bnnrcn]

Very nice light and colors

[xpatUSA]

Some kind of flower. I was attracted by the light - it's all natural - no flash. Shot in its environment. Hope you like yellowness.

Yellow Flower_M8A5194 by Foot Loose2012, on Flickr

Nice idea and composition but I wonder about the post-processing.

The GIMP says that the blue channel is zero just about everywhere, indicating 100% saturation. At lower middle, all the reds and greens are clipped at 255. So the "yellow" color is in fact faux, perhaps deliberately so? This can happen by increasing saturation in post to enhance the flower color - or by editing in say ProPhoto working space but saving as sRGB.

No disrespect intended, it's a nice looking image, faux or no!

[JBW]

It's a keeper.

[Wavelength]

So beautiful...lovely

[IzzieK]

I like it, Greg...for its yellowness...and the light. I would have taken it inside and do focus stacking instead till I find a similar lighting condition unnaturally simply because I am not good with flowers with the breeze and I do not like sunshine very much. I like sunshine when I am not under it...

[Dave Humphries]

I think the image works Greg,

That said, it is quite severely clipped in the red channel and possibly a bit in Green too.
We can only wonder what it might have been like if all the info was there, it may not have made a huge difference to the detail since the brightest area is outside the DoF, so we haven't lost texture, it would have been too soft anyway.

I was actually pleasantly surprised that I found the DoF acceptable when I viewed it large (and close).

The only comment I have is that if mine, I would have cropped the LHS to lose that little bit of petal in lower left corner.

Even so, I enjoyed it as is, despite the technical shortcomings.

Cheers, Dave

[xpatUSA]

I think the image works Greg,

That said, it is quite severely clipped in the red channel and possibly a bit in Green too.

And the blue channel is bottomed-out in almost the entire image, as I mentioned earlier here:

Yellow, Flower
.

[Dave Humphries]

And the blue channel is bottomed-out in almost the entire image, as I mention here:

Err, yes, but if there's no blue light in the image, what else should we expect?


White consist of Red, Green and Blue - but there's no white!

Yellow consists of Red and Green only (simplistically).

And Black is none of the above.

So there is not going to be any Blue.

You're not daft, so I must be missing something Ted?

Anyone using FireFox (or Pale Moon) browsers can install and Add-on called Color Inspector 3D - it makes interesting viewing in that.

[xpatUSA]

Err, yes, but if there's no blue light in the image, what else should we expect?


White consist of Red, Green and Blue - but there's no white!

Yellow consists of Red and Green only (simplistically).

Sorry, that is incorrect, Dave. You could try this in PhotoShop or Elements:

Click on the FG/BG thingy.

Enter an RGB color where RGB = 255,255,0 and, sure enough, the HSB hue (which is the color, after all) will say 60 degs which is pure yellow, of course. Now add any amount of blue between 1 and 254. I'll bet that the hue will stay at 60 degs. At the same time, the saturation (colorfulness) will just get lower the more and more blue you put in.

And Black is none of the above.

So there is not going to be any Blue.

You're not daft, so I must be missing something Ted?

So, now we know that pure yellow, i.e. a hue of 60 degrees, can have any amount of blue in it up to 254.

The thing is, in nature, yellow flowers do have some blue in them. Here is a reflectance graph of a yellow flower:



Basically, this graph says that there should be some blue in an image of that flower. No blue - incorrect color. Some blue (doesn't have to be much), probably OK.

Here's a yellow flower picked at random off the 'net and opened in the GIMP:



Quite a bit of blue in that one because it's a lighter yellow than the one in the OP.

Anyone using FireFox (or Pale Moon) browsers can install and Add-on called Color Inspector 3D - it makes interesting viewing in that.

[FootLoose]

Beautiful lighting, but for my taste, I would have closed down the aperture quite a bit and taken a longer exposure. the depth of field isn't sufficient for my taste; I would have wanted at least the anthers and stigma in focus.

Again it's a matter of taste, but because I like a lot of in-focus detail in flowers, I usually focus-stack images of deep flowers like this. Of course, that is hard to do outside because of wind, etc., so I do a lot of them inside.

No problems, Dan. I don't have any studio equipment so everything is shot outside - and in the wind. Personally, I don't mind if things aren't in tack-sharp focus when there is good light and colour as in this example.

[FootLoose]

Nice idea and composition but I wonder about the post-processing.

The GIMP says that the blue channel is zero just about everywhere, indicating 100% saturation. At lower middle, all the reds and greens are clipped at 255. So the "yellow" color is in fact faux, perhaps deliberately so? This can happen by increasing saturation in post to enhance the flower color - or by editing in say ProPhoto working space but saving as sRGB.

No disrespect intended, it's a nice looking image, faux or no!

The yellow is pretty much how I remembered it, Ted.

I use ACDSee to view raw images and then select the best to take into Photoshop, where they are processed in ProPhoto colour space.

In PS the raw looked a bit flat - naturally - compared to the image in ACDSee so I tried to match it to the that. But then some of the vividness was lost when converting from Prophoto to sRGB and it wa necessary to adjust the colour balance. So, somewhere along the way I took my eyes off the histogram and there is some clipping. Nevertheless, on my monitor at least, the flower is a true representation of what I saw.

[FootLoose]

I like it, Greg...for its yellowness...and the light. I would have taken it inside and do focus stacking instead till I find a similar lighting condition unnaturally simply because I am not good with flowers with the breeze and I do not like sunshine very much. I like sunshine when I am not under it...

Hi Izzie, the yellowness was my only reason for taking the shot. The flower was in the botanic gardens, so I wasn't going to take it inside. And as I said to Dan, I don't have the gear for studio shots anyway.

[FootLoose]

I think the image works Greg,

That said, it is quite severely clipped in the red channel and possibly a bit in Green too.
We can only wonder what it might have been like if all the info was there, it may not have made a huge difference to the detail since the brightest area is outside the DoF, so we haven't lost texture, it would have been too soft anyway.

I was actually pleasantly surprised that I found the DoF acceptable when I viewed it large (and close).

The only comment I have is that if mine, I would have cropped the LHS to lose that little bit of petal in lower left corner.

Even so, I enjoyed it as is, despite the technical shortcomings.

Cheers, Dave

Thanks Dave, I did think about cloning out that little bit of petal.

[Dave Humphries]

Hey Ted,

You see, I knew you weren't daft, but (it turns out) I was being so; overlooking the luminance component, which, as you demonstrate, will add values to blue channel to make the luminance correct as in: R + G + B.

I'm thinking it must be possible to mix red and green light only in values from 1 - 255 in each of those two channels, which may look a bit muddy, but in the real world, "light yellow" also contains a blue component in an RGB system.

When I used to work in TV, I could have had a play with a matte generator to see what that looked like. Must be possible in PS though; e.g. in the manner you'd fill say, a coloured border.

Thanks, Dave

PS
What's that yellow on my face?
Egg!

[xpatUSA]

Hey Ted,

<>

I'm thinking it must be possible to mix red and green light only in values from 1 - 255 in each of those two channels, which may look a bit muddy, but in the real world, "light yellow" also contains a blue component in an RGB system.

Quite so, Dave!

When I used to work in TV, I could have had a play with a matte generator to see what that looked like. Must be possible in PS though; e.g. in the manner you'd fill say, a coloured border.

Yes, when you are setting a fill color, you can enter RGB numbers directly at the side of the pop-up and it shows both the color and the resulting HSB numbers. Or you could get adventurous and enter HSB numbers and see what comes up in RGB: for example, if you entered 60 for Hue and 100 for Saturation, then played with Brightness - it would instructive to see what RGB numbers you get for that.