Trying Mikes suggestion of a lighter background for the tree orchid

[JBW]

ISO 200 ~ Shutter Speed 0.4s ~ F/16 ~ Natural Light ~ Sony Alpha a58 ~ Tamron 90mm 272E

[Shadowman]

The background doesn't fit and that's what makes it work. Nicely composed.

[Merlin52]

Hi Brian,

This is my first real post in CiC so apologies for diving in on your post.

To me your image background distracts from your subject - the flower - and is not sufficiently blurred to stop the eye wandering away from the flower...I would certainly crop out the dark pole at lower left.

I looked at the earlier post referenced here and maybe Mike was thinkging of a very light back ground to give you an almost hi-key image, for instance here https://flic.kr/p/Lx4JUg, made by a friend of mine Jane Dibnah, who makes some beautiful flower images with her use of shallow depth of field and light backgrounds.

In the past I tried photographing orchids and always struggled, the delicate beauty of the flower always difficult to reproduce in camera - perhaps I should ask Jane for advice !
J

[JBW]

Hi Brian,

This is my first real post in CiC so apologies for diving in on your post.

To me your image background distracts from your subject - the flower - and is not sufficiently blurred to stop the eye wandering away from the flower...I would certainly crop out the dark pole at lower left.

I looked at the earlier post referenced here and maybe Mike was thinkging of a very light back ground to give you an almost hi-key image, for instance here https://flic.kr/p/Lx4JUg, made by a friend of mine Jane Dibnah, who makes some beautiful flower images with her use of shallow depth of field and light backgrounds.

In the past I tried photographing orchids and always struggled, the delicate beauty of the flower always difficult to reproduce in camera - perhaps I should ask Jane for advice !
J

Perhaps we both should! That's a beautifully detailed and blurred shot you linked me to. Feel free to jump in on any of my shots. Bg's have always been my weakness.

[Wavelength]

Nicely done

[Mike Buckley]

Bg's have always been my weakness.

Actually, some of your images have beautiful backgrounds that show off the subject extremely well. Not so in this case, at least not for me, for the reasons already given.

I was thinking of something along the lines shown below. That's only because the image in your other thread is of white flowers and uses a plain black background and this one has the same studio or photoshopped look of that black background though using bright tones. Even better for me is the style of the photo provided by John.

[Merlin52]

Perhaps we both should! That's a beautifully detailed and blurred shot you linked me to. Feel free to jump in on any of my shots. Bg's have always been my weakness.

Thanks Brian, hope to be of use where I can in the forum.
We have some Orchids budding at the moment so I may have another go myself...gotta keep trying eh ? !
John

[JBW]

The background doesn't fit and that's what makes it work. Nicely composed.

Thanks... I think

[JBW]

Thanks Brian, hope to be of use where I can in the forum.
We have some Orchids budding at the moment so I may have another go myself...gotta keep trying eh ? !
John

That we do. This is a forum where many people come to mentor and be mentored. You'll fit right in.

[JBW]

I tri9ed a white bg but there was serious ugly around the edges. But I shall give it another go.

[Cogito]

Even a simple adjustment like a significant vignette can improve your posted image!

[JBW]

Even a simple adjustment like a significant vignette can improve your posted image!

I did apply one but apparently not enough of one.

[Merlin52]

Thanks Brian, hope to be of use where I can in the forum.
We have some Orchids budding at the moment so I may have another go myself...gotta keep trying eh ? !
John

So, I had an hour this afternoon - these were taken in our conservatory which is essentially a giant light box ! so nice soft light.
Background was a plain Magnolia coloured wall but I toned it in LR/PS (should have shined a Filament light on the wall at taking !) , added some soft focus / haze in LR and cropped to taste.
Still trying to take a good photo of Orchids but I think these are getting there

Oly EM1/12-40@38mm,f2.8,ISO 200



Oly EM1-40-150@150mm, f8, ISO 1600, Raynox DCR250 2x filter

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I think the main thing with orchids is you have to have enough DOF to get the whole of a bloom in focus or you loose the delicacy of the flower.



For me, if you don't have that my eye is always going back and forth trying to see the part that isn't in focus.

[Mike Buckley]

I think the main thing with orchids is you have to have enough DOF to get the whole of a bloom in focus or you loose the delicacy of the flower.

Though the few photos I have made of orchids kept everything in focus, I disagree. Two great examples of why I disagree is that the flowers in both of John's photos, which do not include all of the flower in focus, display a wonderful sense of delicacy. Indeed, I could argue that limiting the depth of field increases the sense of delicacy if anything.

[Merlin52]

I think the main thing with orchids is you have to have enough DOF to get the whole of a bloom in focus or you loose the delicacy of the flower.

For me, if you don't have that my eye is always going back and forth trying to see the part that isn't in focus.

Perhaps "delicacy" and "intricacy" are here two different things. In my opinion, both have some merit.

For instance, I like Alans very detailed image which shows amazing intricate detail of the flower inner structure and superb texture in the petals, there are some distracting elements (red/green in the background) which can be removed by "Gardening" or cropping/ PS to make it even better, the black background works well making for an almost 3D image.
On the other hand, the technique of shallow DoF/soft focus produces an (imho) "artistic" interpretation of the fragile ("delicate") blossom totally opposite to Alan's emphasis on all over detail.

Regarding compositional elements, I have always believed that eye is drawn to the in-focus element of a "blurry" picture whereas oof can be distracting in an image which aims to be sharp throughout such as in Alan's detailed one.

As I said before, I have yet to take a satisfying flower shot, deciding between Alan's approach or the interpretive approach, I still can't decide.

[Cogito]

Why can't anybody stick to the original post? Maybe John's images are relevant but.....

When I suggested some vignette, I was aiming for something like this..



Not a lighter background but maybe more dynamic?

[JBW]

So, I had an hour this afternoon - these were taken in our conservatory which is essentially a giant light box ! so nice soft light.
Background was a plain Magnolia coloured wall but I toned it in LR/PS (should have shined a Filament light on the wall at taking !) , added some soft focus / haze in LR and cropped to taste.
Still trying to take a good photo of Orchids but I think these are getting there

Oly EM1/12-40@38mm,f2.8,ISO 200



Oly EM1-40-150@150mm, f8, ISO 1600, Raynox DCR250 2x filter

You are definitely going to fit in here. Beautiful shots. And yes you are getting there. One of my problems is the urge to get up as close as possible with my macro lens. Backing off a but makes a big difference.

[JBW]

Why can't anybody stick to the original post? Maybe John's images are relevant but.....

When I suggested some vignette, I was aiming for something like this..



Not a lighter background but maybe more dynamic?

Tony I went with the positive vignette. If I hadf stuck with my usual slightly darker approach it might worked better. As for sticking to the original post.... I learn a lot more when the post opens up like this one has. I like it.

[JBW]

Though the few photos I have made of orchids kept everything in focus, I disagree. Two great examples of why I disagree is that the flowers in both of John's photos, which do not include all of the flower in focus, display a wonderful sense of delicacy. Indeed, I could argue that limiting the depth of field increases the sense of delicacy if anything.

I would argue that they are very different shots. Which means they require different techniques. On a scale of 1 to 10 I'd give John's an 8 and mine a comparative 5. John's shots are simply more beautiful.