Alium seed head

[derekphil]

My first serius attempt at a studio macro shot.
The stalk is a bit obtrusive but I couldn't find an easy way of getting ot out of shot.

[JohnRostron]

The stalk is a bit obtrusive but I couldn't find an easy way of getting ot out of shot.

Not at all intrusive. The stalk is an integral part of the seed head. It belongs!

Nice shot. Was the image focus-stacked.

John

[DanK]

A good first attempt. I agree with John that the stem is fine. What were your settings? Did you stack? How did you illuminate it?

You have some odd blur in a number of places. I've marked the two most obvious below. Was there something behind the alium?

[derekphil]

A good first attempt. I agree with John that the stem is fine. What were your settings? Did you stack? How did you illuminate it?

You have some odd blur in a number of places. I've marked the two most obvious below. Was there something behind the alium?

Dan
Yes, it's a stacked image, f 6.7 and 1/4 secs. Lighting was not good, daylight in my study, which is why the exposure was what it was.
I noticed the blurring, and don't know what caused it. The background was a sheet of matte balck mounting board. Any ideas on cause would be welcomed.
I'm reasonably happy with this as a first attempt at a studio shot, but I do need to get some good illumination.

[Shadowman]

Nice shot, couldn't you have positioned the seed head on?

[derekphil]

Nice shot, couldn't you have positioned the seed head on?

John,
The only way I could reasonably see of doing that would have been to make a hole in the mount board and poke the allium through, and I didn't think it was worth destroying the board for that.

[Shadowman]

John,
The only way I could reasonably see of doing that would have been to make a hole in the mount board and poke the allium through, and I didn't think it was worth destroying the board for that.

Understood, once I suspended a leaf inside a lens hood by attaching a piece of tape to it, I then laid the hood onto a slanted board and shot through the opening. I then exposed the shot so that the hood and background was totally black.

[DanK]

Dan
Yes, it's a stacked image, f 6.7 and 1/4 secs. Lighting was not good, daylight in my study, which is why the exposure was what it was.
I noticed the blurring, and don't know what caused it. The background was a sheet of matte balck mounting board. Any ideas on cause would be welcomed.
I'm reasonably happy with this as a first attempt at a studio shot, but I do need to get some good illumination.

The blurring looks like stacking halos, but that usually happens when there are adjacent areas farther back. It might be motion blur.

How many images did you stack, and what software did you use?

I have to run but will try to remember to post something later about lighting options.

[derekphil]

The blurring looks like stacking halos, but that usually happens when there are adjacent areas farther back. It might be motion blur.

How many images did you stack, and what software did you use?

I have to run but will try to remember to post something later about lighting options.

15 images, processed in Photoshop. Unlikely to be motion blur, I used a tripod and the seedhead was indoors.

[DanK]

15 images, processed in Photoshop. Unlikely to be motion blur, I used a tripod and the seedhead was indoors.

25 images should be ample for something this size and depth.

If there wasn't motion, it must be stacking halos. I am surprised given the nature of the images, but then again, stacking algorithms vary in how susceptible they are to this, and I don't use Photoshop for stacking (I used it only a few times years ago to try it out), so I don't have any feel for it.

[Tina222]

Nice shot!

[derekphil]

I have to run but will try to remember to post something later about lighting options.[/QUOTE]

Dan, I would welcome advice on lighting. I basically have no lighting other than a very insubstantial flash that came with the XT-2, which is of very little use.

[DanK]

Derek,

The lighting needn't be complex. Christopher Beane, who was (is?) a pre-eminent flower photographer, did some with just the light from a doorway. IMHO, the key is to have diffuse light and direct light, the latter to add shadows and depth.

The big decision is choosing between continuous lighting and strobes. I use continuous lighting. I want to be able to see the approximate effects of changes in lighting as I move lights around. You can do that with continuous lighting or with strobes that have modeling lights. You can't do it with a regular flash.

The advantage of continuous lighting is that it is simple and cheap. I use two "hair lights", the small light booms that portrait photographers sometimes place above a subject's head. In the US, cheap ones run about $100 each. One of the two I have is this one, or an earlier model of it. The important thing is that one should have a socket to hold an umbrella (that one doesn't; B&H's store brand did when I bought mine). I use halogen lights for now, although I plan to switch to high-quality LEDs once I solve the problem of finding compatible in-line floor dimmers. I usually use a 75W pointing up into a reflecting (silver) umbrella for the most diffuse lighting. I use a 50 W in one for direct lighting, and I cover that one with a diffuser. (Baking parchment paper works as well as anything fancy, but you may need two sheets. I then move both of them around until I have what I think I will like, take a test shot, and revise.

This simple arrangement is enough to give depth to the photo, e.g.,



The big disadvantage is the long shutter speeds this requires. If you are on a concrete floor or have the flower on something extremely heavy (like a stone countertop), this isn't so bad. If you are on a wooden floor, which I am now, it is a real pain, because the slightest movement can cause the flower to move. This matters more with some flowers than others. The worst has been the numerous milkweeds I have done, like this:



I use a remote release. I flip the mirror up (using mirror lock-up) and stand stock still until I am confident that nothing is moving, then trip the shutter.

I don't have a photo of my current setup, and it is not up now, but here is a photo I took when I was first using this sort of arrangement. The main difference is that I replaced the white umbrella with a reflective one.



I'd like to try studio strobes with modeling lights to avoid the slow-shutter-speed problems, but it would be a considerable investment in time and money. Perhaps someone here who uses them can chime in.

I hope this helps.

Dan

[derekphil]

Derek,

The lighting needn't be complex. Christopher Beane, who was (is?) a pre-eminent flower photographer, did some with just the light from a doorway. IMHO, the key is to have diffuse light and direct light, the latter to add shadows and depth.

The big decision is choosing between continuous lighting and strobes. I use continuous lighting. I want to be able to see the approximate effects of changes in lighting as I move lights around. You can do that with continuous lighting or with strobes that have modeling lights. You can't do it with a regular flash.

The advantage of continuous lighting is that it is simple and cheap. I use two "hair lights", the small light booms that portrait photographers sometimes place above a subject's head. In the US, cheap ones run about $100 each. One of the two I have is this one, or an earlier model of it. The important thing is that one should have a socket to hold an umbrella (that one doesn't; B&H's store brand did when I bought mine). I use halogen lights for now, although I plan to switch to high-quality LEDs once I solve the problem of finding compatible in-line floor dimmers. I usually use a 75W pointing up into a reflecting (silver) umbrella for the most diffuse lighting. I use a 50 W in one for direct lighting, and I cover that one with a diffuser. (Baking parchment paper works as well as anything fancy, but you may need two sheets. I then move both of them around until I have what I think I will like, take a test shot, and revise.

This simple arrangement is enough to give depth to the photo, e.g.,



The big disadvantage is the long shutter speeds this requires. If you are on a concrete floor or have the flower on something extremely heavy (like a stone countertop), this isn't so bad. If you are on a wooden floor, which I am now, it is a real pain, because the slightest movement can cause the flower to move. This matters more with some flowers than others. The worst has been the numerous milkweeds I have done, like this:



I use a remote release. I flip the mirror up (using mirror lock-up) and stand stock still until I am confident that nothing is moving, then trip the shutter.

I don't have a photo of my current setup, and it is not up now, but here is a photo I took when I was first using this sort of arrangement. The main difference is that I replaced the white umbrella with a reflective one.



I'd like to try studio strobes with modeling lights to avoid the slow-shutter-speed problems, but it would be a considerable investment in time and money. Perhaps someone here who uses them can chime in.

I hope this helps.

Dan

Dan,
Many thanks.
A lot of detail there, I'll take some time to study it in detail.
I appreciate your going to all this trouble. Thanks again.
Derek