Macro flower photographs

[Letrow]

Oh! What is that first flower, please? Peter, may I please suggest that this first photo is a bit "messy" with the parts on the right? Also, could you boost the color or the contrast or something on this one? What do you think?

The love in a mist is really lovely! Between your nice use of dof, the pattern on the petals and bokeh, once again, the comment can be made - it looks like a watercolor - meaning, it has a lovely softness in its clarity.

Oops! I'm not supposed to be commenting - I have to go! John, I will be back later - thanks, again!

I think you are right on the first one Katy, it's just that these bees are so fast, I don't really get time to compose, it's just CLICK, CLICK. I probably should compose and wait for the bee to fly in to the composition. And I was aiming for the bees here, not so much for the flower.
And I still have to find out what kind of flower that was.

[arith]

It is not really macro and I've even got a better one I've not processed yet; but since I'm here:



200mm f4 1/800 400iso I guess.

[ScoutR]

WOW! Wendy (there's another one) Where did that come from. Excellent. Did you use the G1 by any chance? Looks great.

Whoopi - 2 WOWs and capitals yet. Seriously though, this came from CiC. The artboard, the reflector, looking at the shots here, and reading the posts, Osmosis I guess, AND I used a tripod. This is taken with the Nikon. I do like the G1 for flowers, but I have this old set of close up filters that fit the kit lens for the Nikon, so that has been getting more use this year. This one was taken with the 18-200mm lens though.

I would really like some opinions on why this shot stands out and gets WOWs as compared to some of my other shots. If anyone would care to comment it would be appreciated. I know I get a bit wimsical sometimes with florals, maybe I go to far in PP and they look right to me but not to anyone else. Any thoughts would be most helpful. I'll keep trying new things, but I'd like to know what makes this shot so much better than some others. I know why I like it, but I like many of my other shots to and they don't get WOWs. Sorry, perhaps I should start a new thread for this, but I'm sure there are others here who might like some tips on what makes a good floral shot and why some work and some don't.

Wendy

[ScoutR]

another bumblebee (type in bumblebee on Google and be surprised: transformers pops up first, both in internet and pictures)


nigella

These are both lovely Peter as are all your florals. I am wondering which lens you use for most of these, and if you would mind posting EXIF with the shots. I can't get it with my viewer for some reason. The thing I notice most is the way you get the detail in the petals but still keep the softness of the flower. Is this the lens or do you wait for the perfect light. Do you use reflectors, diffusers.... fill flash... anything...

BTW, I like the context in the first shot, It is a bit busy on the right, but.... well it works for me. The lighting on the flower is so nice, I can see myself having all kinds of problems with blown highlights and/or dark shadows with this one.

Wendy

[Letrow]

Whoopi - 2 WOWs and capitals yet. Seriously though, this came from CiC. The artboard, the reflector, looking at the shots here, and reading the posts, Osmosis I guess, AND I used a tripod. This is taken with the Nikon. I do like the G1 for flowers, but I have this old set of close up filters that fit the kit lens for the Nikon, so that has been getting more use this year. This one was taken with the 18-200mm lens though.

I would really like some opinions on why this shot stands out and gets WOWs as compared to some of my other shots. If anyone would care to comment it would be appreciated. I know I get a bit wimsical sometimes with florals, maybe I go to far in PP and they look right to me but not to anyone else. Any thoughts would be most helpful. I'll keep trying new things, but I'd like to know what makes this shot so much better than some others. I know why I like it, but I like many of my other shots to and they don't get WOWs. Sorry, perhaps I should start a new thread for this, but I'm sure there are others here who might like some tips on what makes a good floral shot and why some work and some don't.

Wendy

For me the shot stands out because of its background. It's a nice shot because it looks stylized (not real nature like) and the white flower manages to stand out clearly from the white background, making it into something special. It's difficult to put into words, but I guess the focus is much stronger than it is in other shots (apart from composition, which is good too in this shot, but that isn't the reason it is special I think) because of that background.
, I hope that makes a bit of sense.
But I am curious as well to hear why you like it. Do you like it more than other shots you did?

[Letrow]

These are both lovely Peter as are all your florals. I am wondering which lens you use for most of these, and if you would mind posting EXIF with the shots. I can't get it with my viewer for some reason. The thing I notice most is the way you get the detail in the petals but still keep the softness of the flower. Is this the lens or do you wait for the perfect light. Do you use reflectors, diffusers.... fill flash... anything...

BTW, I like the context in the first shot, It is a bit busy on the right, but.... well it works for me. The lighting on the flower is so nice, I can see myself having all kinds of problems with blown highlights and/or dark shadows with this one.

Wendy

Thanks Wendy. Although I like the first one I do agree with Katy: there is too much going on here, I would have liked more bokeh. But it was one of my first attempts at bees and they move so damn fast now and then. I am trying to capture one in full flight, but so far I just had to wait till they settled down for a brief moment, then focus and shoot.
I have a fast focusing lens (the Nikkor 105mm VR), which I use for most macros. If you get real close (again, difficult with bees because they keep moving), you can get great bokeh.
I like to shoot au naturel (fully clothed of course), so no diffusers or anything. Partly this is out of necessity: I visit gardens with my wife (or we walk the dogs in the dunes) and she would be less considerate I think if I would be setting up stuff all the time.
I do like my sunlight though. I have noticed that to have colours pop a bit more you need that light. Shadowshots are disappointing to me nowadays if I compare them to sunny shots.
No flash or anything. I might experiment a bit with that in my own garden though in the near future.

Edit: on EXIF. I have cropped some of the shots in Gimp, then saved them, so that might cause the EXIF data to be lost here. There probably is a smart way in Gimp to leave it attached, but I still have to find out about it.

[ScoutR]

Thanks Wendy. Although I like the first one I do agree with Katy: there is too much going on here, I would have liked more bokeh. But it was one of my first attempts at bees and they move so damn fast now and then. I am trying to capture one in full flight, but so far I just had to wait till they settled down for a brief moment, then focus and shoot.
I have a fast focusing lens (the Nikkor 105mm VR), which I use for most macros. If you get real close (again, difficult with bees because they keep moving), you can get great bokeh.
I like to shoot au naturel (fully clothed of course), so no diffusers or anything. Partly this is out of necessity: I visit gardens with my wife (or we walk the dogs in the dunes) and she would be less considerate I think if I would be setting up stuff all the time.
I do like my sunlight though. I have noticed that to have colours pop a bit more you need that light. Shadowshots are disappointing to me nowadays if I compare them to sunny shots.
No flash or anything. I might experiment a bit with that in my own garden though in the near future.

Edit: on EXIF. I have cropped some of the shots in Gimp, then saved them, so that might cause the EXIF data to be lost here. There probably is a smart way in Gimp to leave it attached, but I still have to find out about it.

Thanks Peter, the 105mm macro has been on my wish list for quite awhile now. Seeing the florals you are shooting with it puts it higher on the list. I'm also glad to know you are getting these shots without a lot of special equipment, that is very encouraging for me as I really hate futzing around with setups. I suppose though there is as much fussing around trying to get the right angle background and light in a natural shot as there is setting up backdrops, reflectors and diffusers for a set up shot, just a different type of fussing. I get very frustrated trying to set up my little reflector and artboard backdrops outside because they are always falling over or I get them set up only to find it has to be moved just a little, then the wind comes up and blows everything over, and by the time I am ready it's raining or something. I won't say I don't like the results of set up shots, I do, it's just that one method seems like work and the other method seems like relaxation.

I hope to get to the point where I can manage the light as well as you do. Right now I find that overcast days are best for me. I really mess things up when the sun is out. Blown highlights, dark shadows, noise... you name it. Overcast is much easier, maybe next year I can deal with sunny and bright, although i did do some poppies the other day that look promising, we'll see.

I wouldn't worry too much about the EXIF, I went through that headache already and found that sometimes my EXIF info shows up and sometimes it does not. I spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out where it was lost, and actually thought I had it solved a few times only to find that it was still there sometimes and not other times. I gave up on it and if I think EXIF is important in the context of the thread I post it.

Thanks again for the info on the lens and shooting conditions.

Wendy

[ScoutR]

For me the shot stands out because of its background. It's a nice shot because it looks stylized (not real nature like) and the white flower manages to stand out clearly from the white background, making it into something special. It's difficult to put into words, but I guess the focus is much stronger than it is in other shots (apart from composition, which is good too in this shot, but that isn't the reason it is special I think) because of that background.
, I hope that makes a bit of sense.
But I am curious as well to hear why you like it. Do you like it more than other shots you did?

Thanks Peter, I also like the white on white I've been trying something similar with an Anomone but don't have the results I want yet. I was trying to use narrow DOF to have a small focal point and have the rest of the flower fading into the background. So far there is a little too much fading.

For me what makes this shot stand out from most of my others is the detail throughout the flower and leaves. I used a tripod and was able to stop down to f16 at ISO 100. Most of my shots are taken at f5.6 ISO 400 and even then the shutter speed is slow enough to cause some motion blur. So for me the detail was something I really liked and am not used to seeing in my shots.

Wendy

[rob marshall]

Whoopi - 2 WOWs and capitals yet. Seriously though, this came from CiC. The artboard, the reflector, looking at the shots here, and reading the posts, Osmosis I guess, AND I used a tripod. This is taken with the Nikon. I do like the G1 for flowers, but I have this old set of close up filters that fit the kit lens for the Nikon, so that has been getting more use this year. This one was taken with the 18-200mm lens though.

I would really like some opinions on why this shot stands out and gets WOWs as compared to some of my other shots. If anyone would care to comment it would be appreciated. I know I get a bit wimsical sometimes with florals, maybe I go to far in PP and they look right to me but not to anyone else. Any thoughts would be most helpful. I'll keep trying new things, but I'd like to know what makes this shot so much better than some others. I know why I like it, but I like many of my other shots to and they don't get WOWs. Sorry, perhaps I should start a new thread for this, but I'm sure there are others here who might like some tips on what makes a good floral shot and why some work and some don't.

Wendy

Wendy

For me, flower shots (and I do a lot of them) need to fall into one of two possible categories. First is the shots in a natural setting. Good shots in this category need something else to make them stand out. That could be some artistry in the way they are shot, or perhaps an unusual juxtaposition. Jiro's recent excellent shot is in that category, and that is what makes it work. Unusual lighting and composition, and a good sense of artistry in it's general style. There are some warts with it, as Steve pointed out about the leaf at the front. But in a shot like this you can forgive that, provided the other things are good, and they are in Jiro's shot.

Jiro's shot "At the end of the day"


The other category that works is what I like to call the 'specimen shot'. You take a flower, cut it, take it indoors, arrange it, take bits off, spray some fake water drops on it, etc. You then use creative lighting to highlight the detail, the colour, and the beauty of it. OK, so it's very artificial, but that doesn't make it non-valid. It's just a different approach and for a different purpose. Flower shots in this category (and yours is there) are to show the detail by isolating the flower and using light to bring it all out. Here is another example of that (below) It's one of my own.

Your shot works, because you have taken a category 2 approach. The reason most people's flower shots don't work very well is they just go out in the garden and think "pretty flower" ...SNAP! They don't use any artistry, as Jiro did, and the don't take a more surgical approach to it

I bet you always wanted to be a category 2 person!

Cammassia

[ScoutR]

Actually Rob, the WOW shot was greatly influenced by your work, you probably know that though, now the world knows too. I am a great fan of your florals and you taught me a lot last year, so while I love the category 2 look, I'm really a category 1 shooter. I think last year I was a "Oh look at the pretty flower" shooter. This year I'm still category 1 but I'm really trying to be more original in my approach. It's obviously not coming naturally to me so I'll keep plugging away. Right now I'm just happy to be past the "Pretty Flower" stage (which I am even if the results don't bare that out)

Thanks for the tips, as always very helpful and interesting.

Wendy

[Katy Noelle]

Cammassia

Thank you!





I saw these at the New York City Botanical Gardens (which I've been meaning to post some photos of in the "English Gardens" thread - I'll get there, I'll get there!) and I fell in love with them. It was at the end of a very long day, though, and I was late to catch the train back in for dinner and just didn't do any of these shots right. Mostly, I can just let it go when that happens but this "miss" really hurt (the light was SO beautiful)! Anyway, the two above are the best ones out of the batch. Close....

[arith]

It looks like a flower; don't know what type. I wonder how long it will take before I get pissed off with this kind of photography.

[Katy Noelle]

Welcome to the party, Arith! It's a Columbine and a very pretty one, too. Nice bokeh!

[JohnC]

Peter-I just use 'Clarity' in my Lightroom3 - that's all I ever use - I wonder if it moved slightly as I took the shot ? .. or more likely I didn't focus it properly on manual but there's allays the possibility I should have been a couple of mm's either nearer or back. It was at 1/60 sec..f3.5

Contrary to Wendy's feeelings on tripods.. I try to shoot as much as I can on one - whatever it is.When I first read books on photography I had a Scott Kelby's beginners guide and he said..'be married to your tripod' and so I have been.

[Letrow]

bumblebee on allium

[Letrow]

Peter-I just use 'Clarity' in my Lightroom3 - that's all I ever use - I wonder if it moved slightly as I took the shot ? .. or more likely I didn't focus it properly on manual but there's allays the possibility I should have been a couple of mm's either nearer or back. It was at 1/60 sec..f3.5

Contrary to Wendy's feeelings on tripods.. I try to shoot as much as I can on one - whatever it is.When I first read books on photography I had a Scott Kelby's beginners guide and he said..'be married to your tripod' and so I have been.

So John, what lens do you use? the aperture seems quite big if you use a tripod. You can probably go a bit smaller.
I would use a tripod if I could, but TBH the camera with lens is already quite a weight to carry around, so I rely on sunshine quite often and higher ISO, which the D7000 is good at luckily.

[Letrow]

It looks like a flower; don't know what type. I wonder how long it will take before I get pissed off with this kind of photography.

I like this quite a lot Steve, good detail, nice colours and sweet bokeh in the background

[Letrow]

Thank you!





I saw these at the New York City Botanical Gardens (which I've been meaning to post some photos of in the "English Gardens" thread - I'll get there, I'll get there!) and I fell in love with them. It was at the end of a very long day, though, and I was late to catch the train back in for dinner and just didn't do any of these shots right. Mostly, I can just let it go when that happens but this "miss" really hurt (the light was SO beautiful)! Anyway, the two above are the best ones out of the batch. Close....

I know what you mean. They are quite colourful, but the composition on the first just lacks that little... ah well, you did make them pop

[rob marshall]

[MiniChris]

I wish there was a slight stroke around the image to offset it from the background..some of the whites at the corners want to escape to the background.