Macro/Close-Up: Red ~ With thanks to Bob Ross 'The Joy Of Painting'

[JBW]

[DanK]

At least on my little laptop monitor (I don't have access to my regular monitor at the moment), it looks like there is no detail left in the reds. The histogram doesn't show clipping, so I can't see why.

[chaman]

At least on my little laptop monitor (I don't have access to my regular monitor at the moment), it looks like there is no detail left in the reds. The histogram doesn't show clipping, so I can't see why.

It seems OOF completely. I can't see any sharp area anywhere. The less OOF areas are in the center of the flower.

[Shadowman]

I see some sharpness in the center and the edges of the petals, I know Bob Ross is a watercolor enthusiast; were you trying for a patchwork type image; if so you may want to lessen the sharpness of the petals.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Brian,

I have to admit I'm totally lost as to how this image has anything to do with 'painting'

To me it's simply a flower shot, a bit on the dark side and does not really accentuate the beauty of nature. Perhaps I'm looking for something you have not intended to portray in the image or I'm looking for something only I imagine.

Contrary to Oscars comment it's perfectly in focus and on the plane most of us would consider most important but there's just too much OOF in the rest of the frame area that's competing or of little significance.

Would you consider cropping in tighter and brightening the flower centre?

[JBW]

At least on my little laptop monitor (I don't have access to my regular monitor at the moment), it looks like there is no detail left in the reds. The histogram doesn't show clipping, so I can't see why.

there is not a lot of detail but it is there.

[JBW]

It seems OOF completely. I can't see any sharp area anywhere. The less OOF areas are in the center of the flower.

the focus is priumarily on the bright center ring but other areas are also in focus.

[JBW]

Hi Brian,

I have to admit I'm totally lost as to how this image has anything to do with 'painting'

To me it's simply a flower shot, a bit on the dark side and does not really accentuate the beauty of nature. Perhaps I'm looking for something you have not intended to portray in the image or I'm looking for something only I imagine.

Contrary to Oscars comment it's perfectly in focus and on the plane most of us would consider most important but there's just too much OOF in the rest of the frame area that's competing or of little significance.

Would you consider cropping in tighter and brightening the flower centre?

More with composition, dodging and burning than actually painting which were what he was emphasizing.

You're right it is simply a flower shot and you're also right it misses the beauty of the flower. I always seem to miss the beauty of this flower.

I'll try brightening and a tighter crop. What would you say to brightening with a looser crop?

Part of the problem is that these flowers are deep red and thrive in the shadows.

One day with a little help from my friends I'll get it right

[chaman]

Hi Brian,

I have to admit I'm totally lost as to how this image has anything to do with 'painting'

To me it's simply a flower shot, a bit on the dark side and does not really accentuate the beauty of nature. Perhaps I'm looking for something you have not intended to portray in the image or I'm looking for something only I imagine.

Contrary to Oscars comment it's perfectly in focus and on the plane most of us would consider most important but there's just too much OOF in the rest of the frame area that's competing or of little significance.

Would you consider cropping in tighter and brightening the flower centre?

The center of the flower has better focus. Focused perfectly? Nope, IMO, and by a long shot. As an above poster said...there is "some" sharpness there...some.

[JBW]

The center of the flower has better focus. Focused perfectly? Nope, IMO, and by a long shot. As an above poster said...there is "some" sharpness there...some.

Fair enough Oscar. I don't know where your somewhere in t6he tropics is but maybe you have the same flower somewhere near you. Perhaps you could give it a try.

I do a reasonable macro with usually good focus but this flower eludes me every time. I will try to get out today and give it another try.

[chaman]

Fair enough Oscar. I don't know where your somewhere in t6he tropics is but maybe you have the same flower somewhere near you. Perhaps you could give it a try.

I do a reasonable macro with usually good focus but this flower eludes me every time. I will try to get out today and give it another try.

No need to give it a try, friend. The flower its OOF, "mostly" sharp in the center but still OOF. Ive done macro and its not my cup of tea but an OOF image is just that....OOF. It dont matter if it is landscapes, portraits or nature. As usual your reaction to critique is always the same. I will stay out of your threads. I dont need this kind of interaction. Should have known better. Good luck.

[JBW]

No need to give it a try, friend. The flower its OOF, "mostly" sharp in the center but still OOF. Ive done macro and its not my cup of tea but an OOF image is just that....OOF. It dont matter if it is landscapes, portraits or nature. As usual your reaction to critique is always the same. I will stay out of your threads. I dont need this kind of interaction. Should have known better. Good luck.

I'm trying to be nice and to work with your critique. Please accept my apologies.

[JBW]

Hi Brian,

I have to admit I'm totally lost as to how this image has anything to do with 'painting'

To me it's simply a flower shot, a bit on the dark side and does not really accentuate the beauty of nature. Perhaps I'm looking for something you have not intended to portray in the image or I'm looking for something only I imagine.

Contrary to Oscars comment it's perfectly in focus and on the plane most of us would consider most important but there's just too much OOF in the rest of the frame area that's competing or of little significance.

Would you consider cropping in tighter and brightening the flower centre?

Hi Grahame I have taken your critique seriously and have tried to address the issues you and others have raised. I have unintentionally offended Oscar so let me state up front that I hope I don't offend you or anyone else.

I went back out today and tried an entirely different set-up. I tried the tighter crop but for me it just doesn't work. So I went wider, much wider. I also took your critique about losing the natural beauty to heart. Does this shot retain/enhance the natural beauty in your opinion? I also hope that I addressed the possible OOF issue?

[Stagecoach]

The center of the flower has better focus. Focused perfectly? Nope, IMO, and by a long shot. As an above poster said...there is "some" sharpness there...some.

It seems OOF completely. I can't see any sharp area anywhere. The less OOF areas are in the center of the flower.

I have to admit I'm somewhat confused Oscar. If the image was "OOF completely" we would not see areas to the front and rear that are very clearly OOF and then areas such as the minute hairs on the petal edges well defined and sharp which are on the focus plane.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Grahame I have taken your critique seriously and have tried to address the issues you and others have raised. I have unintentionally offended Oscar so let me state up front that I hope I don't offend you or anyone else.

I went back out today and tried an entirely different set-up. I tried the tighter crop but for me it just doesn't work. So I went wider, much wider. I also took your critique about losing the natural beauty to heart. Does this shot retain/enhance the natural beauty in your opinion? I also hope that I addressed the possible OOF issue?

You have certainly not offended me in any way Brian.

Firstly what I will say is that from my own experience I have never really had any success attempting to photograph small flowers, I suspect it's totally due to IQ rather than any particular difference between the make up difference between a smaller and larger subject.

Strangely, my other half looked at the images and took interest in what I explained to her, she likes your second attempt because she prefers the leaves and finds them more interesting than the flower. For me the second shot does not enhance the natural beauty of the flower, but it could work if you wanted to show the single flower with its leaves.

As for the OOF issue, I can't see one. What there is is a very shallow DOF as we would expect but on this second image I'm wondering if it would have been possible, or more important to get the entire flower within the DOF.

Anyway, for info here is my take of how I would have tackled the first shot, it also emphasises where the focus plane was, just about perfect

[JBW]

You have certainly not offended me in any way Brian.

Firstly what I will say is that from my own experience I have never really had any success attempting to photograph small flowers, I suspect it's totally due to IQ rather than any particular difference between the make up difference between a smaller and larger subject.

Strangely, my other half looked at the images and took interest in what I explained to her, she likes your second attempt because she prefers the leaves and finds them more interesting than the flower. For me the second shot does not enhance the natural beauty of the flower, but it could work if you wanted to show the single flower with its leaves.

As for the OOF issue, I can't see one. What there is is a very shallow DOF as we would expect but on this second image I'm wondering if it would have been possible, or more important to get the entire flower within the DOF.

Anyway, for info here is my take of how I would have tackled the first shot, it also emphasises where the focus plane was, just about perfect

My second attempt is certainly more of a leaf shot. The ring of 'teeth' is where I tried to put the focus. These flowers bloom year round I'll try for an in camera shot like yours and see where it takes me. And please thank your other half for her excellent taste and critique

[chaman]

I have to admit I'm somewhat confused Oscar. If the image was "OOF completely" we would not see areas to the front and rear that are very clearly OOF and then areas such as the minute hairs on the petal edges well defined and sharp which are on the focus plane.

I dont see any confusion at all. The hairs you refer too are less OOF, perhaps a bit more sharp but the whole image....is OOF. Is soft all over. Like it was said above, those areas are somewhat "sharper" but are not sharp and are indeed OOF to me. Perhaps my standards to what a focused, sharp image is are too rigid but I stand behind my statement. The whole image IS soft.

[Stagecoach]

but the whole image....is OOF. Is soft all over. Like it was said above, those areas are somewhat "sharper" but are not sharp and are indeed OOF to me. Perhaps my standards to what a focused, sharp image is are too rigid but I stand behind my statement. The whole image IS soft.

So how do we get clearly sharp areas within an image which as you say "is OOF and is soft all over"?

[chaman]

So how do we get clearly sharp areas within an image which as you say "is OOF and is soft all over"?

You could try even bigger words and arrows but sadly it still OOF. Mostly sharp is not the same as focused. Yes its OOF. There is not a single truly sharp area in the image.

[chaman]

And, unsubscribed.