Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Close-ups (
-   -   At the Lily Pond (

Tomsch Aug 29, 2004 6:54 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Just starting to open.

geoffs Aug 29, 2004 9:06 PM

Very good composition on this shot, tomsch.You caught the right light and exposed well!

The only thing you might do is use a little sharpening on it as it is a teensy bit soft.

ImKayd1 Aug 29, 2004 11:55 PM

Wow it looks really sharp to me, even to the small drop of water on the petal on the right of screen. . .hhhmmmmmm. Nice shot.


geoffs Aug 30, 2004 12:02 AM

Just a teensy bit soft, Suzan ;)

Tomsch Aug 30, 2004 8:30 AM

I would expect this to look a little soft. I tend to shoot my florals that way by choice.If you get too intent on the sharp focus you seem to loose the artistic beauty of a flower, it becomes cold and scientific in appearance. To make the whole bloom sharp and in focus you would need to close down to an fstop that would negate the oof BG. That would not do much for the bloom! The only other choice is to shoot more open to achieve a nice oof BG, but alas this will mean that with a large bloom some part of the bloom will not be in sharp focus due to the shallow DOF. My choice then is to shoot a tad soft with nothing in sharp focus thus eliminating the hard edges of in focus and out of focus elements. It creates a dreamy soft quality to floral shots and is very effective in portraiture as well. So the soft florals you'll see from me are an attempt at presenting the subject matter in the best light and look that I can.

I've always thought it a mistake to sharpen or put hard edges on soft items like flowers,people or even landscapes. Your mind sees these things as soft and if we see them too sharp , they look un-natural. This is a very subjective issue and there is no correct position only what it takes to please each of us and that is always different.

If you are selling your work, don't get too sharp with florals. Next time you buy a greeting card look close at the images and see how many sharp detailed florals you see.

Tomsch Aug 30, 2004 11:31 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Here is one shot at the lenses highest fstop for maxium DOF and as such it appears sharper and maybe is more to the taste of some folks. You may have to look close to notice the items in the BG that are now in focus somewhat.

geoffs Aug 30, 2004 11:39 AM

I like both images tomsch. Depending on my mood at the time I can enjoy the more artsy look of a "soft" flower shot or the more realistic look of a sharp image with greater DOF.

Depending on your own personal philosophy about the manipulation of images after the initial act of triggering the shutter, you could selectively sharpen the flower and/or selectively blur the background to achieve different effects. I've post-processed to do these types of things and in truth I really think that I prefer to "get it right" when I am taking the photograph - otherwise it starts to feel to me more like digital art than photography.

Tomsch Aug 30, 2004 12:02 PM

I agree, if a shot is taken properly it has a quality that is very hard to reproduce in post pcocessing. Look in the lower right corner and you'll see the female dragon fly depositing her eggs on the foliage in the water. Talk about a bonus shot.

Five years ago I spent countless hours fiddling with images in various editing programs. Now my hours are spent in the field and very little behind the keyboard. If I notice a defect in an image I would far rather scrap it than correct it in post processing. When I have to do to much to retrieve an image that means I failed as a photographer. I would far prefer to spend three hours shooting Dragons in hopes of getting a special shot than I would spend three hours in photo shop to create one! Improving your skills as a photographer can never be a bad thing!

geoffs Aug 30, 2004 12:11 PM

Tomsch wrote:

When I have to do to much to retrieve an image that means I failed as a photographer.
There is an instance where the above does not hold true. I'm in the midst of archiving my 32 year old slide collection to digital media. This involves scanning these slides with a high quality film scanner. I've unfortunately found that 32 years of time does strange things to transparencies and this is compounded by the scanner's inability to do justice in the scan to the original image (film scanners' dynamic range just doesn't cut it for a lot of transparencies). That has put me in the position of having to use a more than normal amount of post-processing just to get the scanned image back tothe appearance ofthe original transparency.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2