Shooting Star Tree Orchid (neither macro nor close-up)

[JBW]

Tree orchids are hard to capture in all their beauty. Shooting Star tree orchids take the challenge to an all new level. These were shot at about one meter away, ISO 100, a shutter speed of 0.8 and F/16. I'm happy though not content with the results.

[Manfred M]

This is one of those shots where I pull out Robert Capa's famous quote; "if your image is not good enough, your're not close enough.". Too much material that does not contribute to the image in this shot Brian.

[JBW]

This is one of those shots where I pull out Robert Capa's famous quote; "if your image is not good enough, your're not close enough.". Too much material that does not contribute to the image in this shot Brian.

are you seriously suggesting that the S curve running across the top does not contribute to this shot? And the S curve creates the demand for the rest of the bg.

Keep the S curve and create a better crop.

Certainly removing the S curve and squaring the crop would create a nice shot but it wouldn't be this shot.

[Manfred M]

are you seriously suggesting that the S curve running across the top does not contribute to this shot? And the S curve creates the demand for the rest of the bg.

Keep the S curve and create a better crop.

Certainly removing the S curve and squaring the crop would create a nice shot but it wouldn't be this shot.

The "S" curve does not bring the viewer's eyes to the subject, and is therefore superfluous to the shot. Merely having a compositional element in the image does not guarantee that it works / contributes to the shot. It's the effectiveness of the element that counts.

[NorthernFocus]

What a beautiful flower. And it stands out well among all that green. I agree with Manfred that there's too much extraneous canvas.

are you seriously suggesting that the S curve running across the top does not contribute to this shot? ...

I'm not seeing an S. So apparently to at least one viewer it doesn't contribute

...Certainly removing the S curve and squaring the crop would create a nice shot but it wouldn't be this shot.

What is the intended shot? Is it a shot of a flower or of the jungle? Of of a flower lost in the jungle? The title sort of advertised it as a shot of a flower.

It also looks odd that one branch/group of flowers is dripping with water and nothing else in the shot is wet at all. That's another reason to isolate it more

[JBW]

Tree orchids are hard to capture in all their beauty. Shooting Star tree orchids take the challenge to an all new level. These were shot at about one meter away, ISO 100, a shutter speed of 0.8 and F/16. I'm happy though not content with the results.

Follow the branch in from the top left. the first bottom leaf on the branch curves beautifully yet unobtrusively to the Shooting Stars. The branch itself is beautifully yet unobtrusively curved and the curve takes you directly to where the Shooting Stars are connected to the curving branch.

My intention for the shot was to show the flowers in their environment. In this case the environment is a tropical rain forest that inhabits part of our garden. I started off almost 2 meters back. This shot was taken about 1 meter back. The title does say (neither macro nor close-up)

Blame mother nature for where the rain fell not me.

I am afraid that there is no way (that I can think of) to show these flowers in their natural habitat without having lots of leaves in the background.

It would be like taking a shot of a grizzly feeding at the river and taking away the river and the river bank because it was too busy. Or like shooting a portrait of a woman but having her wear a hijab because her face is too distracting.

So here's a challenge. Keeping the flowers in a recognizable tropical rain forest habitat suggest a better crop.

I'm open to suggestions....

[Urbanflyer]

One suggestion is to use the burn and dodge tools to help focus the eye on the flowers. Burn the highlights in the environmental section of the photo just enough to tone them down. Dodge the highlights of the flowers only slightly and only where they are more shadowed. Burn in the midtones of the environmental portion, again just a little. These steps help create a visual separation between the flowers and the environment which some will find useful.

Many crops are possible which still maintain the messy quality of the rainforest. One option is to take a big hunk off the left, to the stem of the leaf that hangs down near the flowers, take a small bit off the top-just keeping the leaf that umbrellas over the flowers, and a small bit off the right leaving the flowers near the lower right-third line or near the center bottom third line depending on what is needed to attain your vision of a tropical rainforest habitat.

Working with an existing photo often teaches much during the analysis of the compositional problem.

[Manfred M]

It would be like taking a shot of a grizzly feeding at the river and taking away the river and the river bank because it was too busy.

Why not, if it works better? Although this young grizzly is feeding on the banks of an estuary, so it's technically not a river, but visually it is quite similar.

Or like shooting a portrait of a woman but having her wear a hijab because her face is too distracting.

Sorry, not a hijab, but shots of a mostly covered face can be extremely effective too. I suspect you meant a niqab, which is a full face covering. A hijab covers the head. If you would like some effective shots of full-face coverings, I have some of those too.




Brian - a photographer needs a clear vision and a plan on how he or she will accomplish that vision to get a strong image. With the shot at the top of this thread, I'm not sure that you are quite there yet.

[Shadowman]

Brian,

You've captured some good detail within the composition, I can see why you like this image. For me the detail is outstanding but what really kicks it for me are the dew drops; I often shoot subjects like this but what I like to do is try to let those petals extend towards the viewer; hopefully giving the illusion of breaking the through the 2-dimensional frame.

[JBW]

Why not, if it works better? Although this young grizzly is feeding on the banks of an estuary, so it's technically not a river, but visually it is quite similar.






Sorry, not a hijab, but shots of a mostly covered face can be extremely effective too. I suspect you meant a niqab, which is a full face covering. A hijab covers the head. If you would like some effective shots of full-face coverings, I have some of those too.




Brian - a photographer needs a clear vision and a plan on how he or she will accomplish that vision to get a strong image. With the shot at the top of this thread, I'm not sure that you are quite there yet.

Your shots prove my point. They7 are nice enough shots but neither one is a 16x9 shot. Neither shot depends upon the bg, It could as easily and as pleasingly be a white sheet.

I had no desire nor intent to take such a shot. Once again you are using your my way or the highway approach. If you want to help me improve help me improve within my style not yours please and thank-you.

For the record I used the generic term hijab. You used a specific term relating to one style of hijab. If i had wanted to use a specific term I would probably have gone with Bushiyya.

You also either through loose reading or intent missed my point entirely. So let me attempt one final time to make my point.

Your belief that the bg in my shot is distracting and should be eliminated is as senseless a belief as someone telling you you that your models body or face is too distracting so you need to entirely cover it and then take a shot of her body or face.

[Manfred M]

Your shots prove my point. They7 are nice enough shots but neither one is a 16x9 shot. Neither shot depends upon the bg, It could as easily and as pleasingly be a white sheet.

In general the format of the shot is an outcome of the composition. 16x9 may or may not work for the image you are trying for. Forcing it into a format that is not working is not going to give you a strong image. That particular format works well in situations where there is a lot of foreground and a lot of sky, for instance a panoramic shot. It will be more difficult to get it to work with the type of scene that you are shooting in this thread.

Neither shot I posted would have worked with the white sheet. In one the green sedge grass that the bear is sitting in and eating is a significant compositional component. In the other, the red tones of the surroundings is an important compositional element.

I had no desire nor intent to take such a shot. Once again you are using your my way or the highway approach. If you want to help me improve help me improve within my style not yours please and thank-you.

I was not responding to your desire to take a specific shot or not, I was simply responding to your comment about what happens when one takes a grizzly without the river and the banks and what happens when one works with a partially covered face. It can be done and done well. It can also be done ineffectively and a poor image results.

Likewise, one can do the types of shots that you have written about; but shots showing the eating bear, the river and the bank. These can be done well (look at the images Dan (NorthernFocus) has posted here. It's all about how the pieces are assembled when one composes the shot.

It has nothing to do with "my way or the highway". I can only tell you what, in my opinion, works with an image and what does not, and why that is the case. This is independent of style, taste, technique, PP, etc.

I would love to help you develop within your chosen style, but I'm not sure what that is. Style is an outcome, not an input. It is something that develops over time and is not something that is forced.

When I look at your blowfly images, some of these were very well done. The same goes for the recently posted hibiscus flower. Some of the milkweed(?) shots were well done. Examine those closely and figure out what works well (and why) and what could be improved (how and why).

Just as an aside, once a month I sit down for a couple of hours with a small group of very good, very experienced photographers and let them critique my work (and I critique theirs). These people are brutally honest in their analysis. I don't always agree with what they say about my pictures, but most of the time I will take their suggestions. I will then either scrap the shot, if it has a fundamental flaw that can only be fixed in camera or I'll rework it in post to strengthen the image. That process of ongoing constructive criticism helps me improve my work.

[FootLoose]

I think the diagonal is a stronger compositional element in this image. It would possibly be even better if you reshoot it in vertical orientation.

[JBW]

In general the format of the shot is an outcome of the composition. 16x9 may or may not work for the image you are trying for. Forcing it into a format that is not working is not going to give you a strong image. That particular format works well in situations where there is a lot of foreground and a lot of sky, for instance a panoramic shot. It will be more difficult to get it to work with the type of scene that you are shooting in this thread.

Neither shot I posted would have worked with the white sheet. In one the green sedge grass that the bear is sitting in and eating is a significant compositional component. In the other, the red tones of the surroundings is an important compositional element.




I was not responding to your desire to take a specific shot or not, I was simply responding to your comment about what happens when one takes a grizzly without the river and the banks and what happens when one works with a partially covered face. It can be done and done well. It can also be done ineffectively and a poor image results.

Likewise, one can do the types of shots that you have written about; but shots showing the eating bear, the river and the bank. These can be done well (look at the images Dan (NorthernFocus) has posted here. It's all about how the pieces are assembled when one composes the shot.

It has nothing to do with "my way or the highway". I can only tell you what, in my opinion, works with an image and what does not, and why that is the case. This is independent of style, taste, technique, PP, etc.

I would love to help you develop within your chosen style, but I'm not sure what that is. Style is an outcome, not an input. It is something that develops over time and is not something that is forced.

When I look at your blowfly images, some of these were very well done. The same goes for the recently posted hibiscus flower. Some of the milkweed(?) shots were well done. Examine those closely and figure out what works well (and why) and what could be improved (how and why).

Just as an aside, once a month I sit down for a couple of hours with a small group of very good, very experienced photographers and let them critique my work (and I critique theirs). These people are brutally honest in their analysis. I don't always agree with what they say about my pictures, but most of the time I will take their suggestions. I will then either scrap the shot, if it has a fundamental flaw that can only be fixed in camera or I'll rework it in post to strengthen the image. That process of ongoing constructive criticism helps me improve my work.

Manfred, From when I first joined this group you have always believed in your own inerrancey. You knew that I needed to do editing by the numbers because my MS would not allow me to do it any other way. You knew that I would never be able to focus manually or move my tripod with the required delicacy. You knew that I did not have the coordination to use a three way pan and tilt tripod. Now you know what path I must walk to become a better photographer. And of course you know all this because of your superior education and experience.

Truth be told you know nothing about my limitations physical, educational or mental.

I am more than a little tired of your abuse.

I have tried to use the 'ignore' option but I can't because you are a moderator.

So how about you ignore my postings and save us both unneeded aggravation.

Brian

[JBW]

One suggestion is to use the burn and dodge tools to help focus the eye on the flowers. Burn the highlights in the environmental section of the photo just enough to tone them down. Dodge the highlights of the flowers only slightly and only where they are more shadowed. Burn in the midtones of the environmental portion, again just a little. These steps help create a visual separation between the flowers and the environment which some will find useful.

Many crops are possible which still maintain the messy quality of the rainforest. One option is to take a big hunk off the left, to the stem of the leaf that hangs down near the flowers, take a small bit off the top-just keeping the leaf that umbrellas over the flowers, and a small bit off the right leaving the flowers near the lower right-third line or near the center bottom third line depending on what is needed to attain your vision of a tropical rainforest habitat.

Working with an existing photo often teaches much during the analysis of the compositional problem.

Something like this?

[JBW]

I think the diagonal is a stronger compositional element in this image. It would possibly be even better if you reshoot it in vertical orientation.

More squarish but I do like the top branch:

[Urbanflyer]

Something like this?

yes--can you see the difference in the way the flowers becomne more central without sacrificing the messiness? I would crop just a little more at the left to eliminate the large leaf hanging down at the far left side. You will have to experiement and see how much you can take off the lft and still feel good about it..

I like the top leaf too!

[JBW]

yes--can you see the difference in the way the flowers becomne more central without sacrificing the messiness? I would crop just a little more at the left to eliminate the large leaf hanging down at the far left side. You will have to experiement and see how much you can take off the lft and still feel good about it..

I like the top leaf too!

I have told my blog readers to expect a third take.

[george013]

I have told my blog readers to expect a third take.

Maybe you might consider to use a fill flash to create some depth. In that case your subject, among the twig, will be more pronounced in the image. Play with different values. Avoid over doing it.

George

[JBW]

Maybe you might consider to use a fill flash to create some depth. In that case your subject, among the twig, will be more pronounced in the image. Play with different values. Avoid over doing it.

George

flash is my least favorite way of shooting but the next time I'll give it a try.

[NorthernFocus]

I think the diagonal is a stronger compositional element in this image. It would possibly be even better if you reshoot it in vertical orientation.

Thus