Neat Flow to this flower

[selig1656]

P7158724 edited by Raymond Friedman, on Flickr

[xpatUSA]

Nice shot with the flowers "flowing" out the image toward the viewer, if I understand the title correctly.

Image is a bit big for my computer, px-wise, and quite a noisy background when zooming in.

For posting here, one might be tempted to apply some NR and then reduce the image size:



Reduced to 1024px wide, for example.

[selig1656]

Ted thank you for your input, I will relook at the PP for some adjustments.

[ST1]

I think your flower may be a Crocosmia, possibly called Lucifer, but I could be wrong


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[xpatUSA]

Ted thank you for your input, I will relook at the PP for some adjustments.

Well, Raymond, I was making a small point about noise and not really telling you what to do about it. You may not want to put two images up on FlickR - (e.g. a big one for enjoyment at home, a smaller one for posting here) - and there's nothing wrong with that, although the suggest for images posted here is about 1600px on the long side, IIRC.

For the image I posted, I simply applied some Gaussian smoothing and then downsized it sharpened to post here. There many ways to reduce noise, most are better than what I did which was just for speed and convenience.

[DanK]

Raymond,

A nice capture, but it illustrates why taking photos of flowers in their natural settings is often so hard. The background is complex, high contrast, and close enough to the flower that it's not very blurred. The result is a lot of stuff that draws the eye away from what you want people to look at, which is the flower. In particular, the dark, high-contrast diagonal leaf is a real distraction.

One option is to cheat: cut the flower and photograph it indoors. That's what I often do. However, there are other options. Sometimes you can find a flower that is far enough from other things that the background is blurred. The third and eighth images on your Flickr page are good examples of this. You may be able to change your position to get a less cluttered background. If you are using a tripod, you can use a small clamp to hold the flower away from other stuff. I sometimes use one of these. But sometimes I give up and decide that a particular flower is in a setting where I just can't get the image I want.

Dan

[selig1656]

After reviewing comments I made adjustments as I do fail to repost.I take all comments and enjoy the various views.
P7158724 cropped by Raymond Friedman, on Flickr

[xpatUSA]

After reviewing comments I made adjustments as I do fail to repost.I take all comments and enjoy the various views.

Raymond, may I ask what camera and lens?

[selig1656]

Ted, shot this with my older camera, Olympus E-620 f-6.3 at 114mm.

[Manfred M]

+1 to Dan's comments. One of the first courses I took at the local college when I bought my first DSLR was one on nature photography. The instructor was a nationally known, local nature and wildlife photography and two of the techniques we were taught are ones I still use today.

1. Use a tripod - this does two things; it slows the photographer down and forces them to make more considered decisions when composing the image. If the shot does not appear to look strong enough, moving the camera / tripod can be used to improve it.

2. Look for distractions. We often concentrate on the subject, but distractions occur in the background and around the edges of the frame. Pass your eyes around the edge of the frame before taking the shot. By not having to hold the camera still, we can concentrate on areas that we normally would not notice.

The photographer I studied under always carried a small pair of scissors in his equipment bag and would snip off small distracting elements - leaves and small twigs, when necessary.

[selig1656]

Manfred, thank you.

[DanK]

A tripod helps, but you can follow the second piece of advice without one. Try to discipline yourself to pay attention to the background rather than just the subject of the photo.

[xpatUSA]

Ted, shot this with my older camera, Olympus E-620 f-6.3 at 114mm.

Thanks, Raymond.

Micro four-thirds rules, eh? ...