Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: sdwilsonsct on June 27, 2012, 03:19:04 am
-
Thanks for looking.
Scott
-
In both images, I find the background expanse out of focus to be too overpowering to the lesser bit of foreground in focus. Either a bit more depth of field, or a tighter crop though in the top image, it would almost certainly have to be a greater depth of field to do justice to the glacerial scene.
-
Scott, these images were well worth taking to see what they would look like.
Experimentation is always good.
Nonetheless, the impact of the brilliant foreground is totally diluted by the out of focus middle and background.
So, in my humble opinion, these images don't really work.
However, I look forward to seeing more images.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Scott,
I agree with Chris & Jay, although the second image is somewhat better.
It's good to read civil, constructive comments that we can all benefit from.
Kerry
-
Thanks, Chris, Tony and Kerry. Fair and very useful comments.
These images were made in response to my "Marsh morning" thread (competent but boring). Here I have tried to provide context and background.
Making a decent image involving flowers is much harder than I thought! :)
Anybody know of any good examples of plants in their habitat? As opposed to interpretive, macro close-ups (very nice, but not my aim here...).
Scott
-
Scott. I have to agree about the DOF issues on these but I also understand the issue. You are right, flowers in the landscape are tough. I many throw aways to support that view point.
-
I really enjoy the dramatic perspective offered by both photos and am always supportive of photographers who work towards showing context like you have here.
Trying to get everything in focus from fore- to background is a challenge I can appreciate, especially in harsh environments where wind can be a huge limiting factor in using a small aperture which requires a slower shutter speed. All I can suggest is keep trying. Try using hyperfocal distance settings, one of the advantages of using prime lenses. That way, you may also learn that you may not need ƒ22 or ƒ16 to achieve the results you are after.
Alternatively, try a tilt-shift lens for these extreme shots as it is possible to use a larger aperture to gain the same depth-of-field.
-
Try using hyperfocal distance settings, one of the advantages of using prime lenses
Another lesson learned: thanks, Terry. This was shot at f/11 to avoid CA (thanks, Slobodan), but I certainly could have focused further back instead of on the closest flower.
Chuck, I reckoned a fuzzy background would be OK. Not that fuzzy, apparently.
Scott
-
I like the first image.
I show two images, but I think your first is much better
-
Nice Gentians(?) !
Good focus far and near, a little fuzzy in the middle: did you focus stack?
Like mine, these photos tend towards GMS (Gaping Midground Syndrome).
Scott
-
Yes, they are gentians, no focus stack, I used a GND filter, perhaps a polarizer too. Location (always to be mentioned): East Grosina Valley for the gentians, West Grosina valley for the other ones (they should be pulsatilla alpina) both in Valtelline valley. I think that far snow and rocks have lesser texture than the grass, therefore can't appear so fuzzy as the grass... (The grass is called "Visega" in Grosio local language)
Excuse me for my barbaric english.
-
I reckoned a fuzzy background would be OK. Not that fuzzy, apparently.
To me, the problem isn't so much the fuzzy background as the brightness/color of the background compared to the foreground.
Glacialis.jpg -- I look straight at that bright snowy mountain side and bright blue sky, glance at the tiny flower, and quickly look back at the bright parts of the picture. My guess is that if the tiny flower appeared as large as the stone to its right, then it might compete more successfully with the bright colorful background.
Acaulis.jpg -- The background isn't as bright and there's a larger area of bright petals, so the foreground isn't so overwhelmed.
-
Anybody know of any good examples of plants in their habitat? As opposed to interpretive, macro close-ups (very nice, but not my aim here...)
Scott, you could have a look at Jeremy Cram's work here http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=191224&CGISESSID=34b43cf8b404ec76873f122ea94566eb&u=6261 and also Marc Adamus who often uses flowers in the foreground.
-
... This was shot at f/11...
What focal length and what camera format?
-
Murmetier -- no excuses needed! Thanks for writing in this barbaric language.
Isaac - Thanks! I like the idea of adjusting the brightness and will look into this.
Riaan -- Nice image by Cram. Using big flowers would certainly help. :) Good to see how he did these and I will look into it more.
Slobodan - 10 mm (10-22 mm Canon lens) on a 50D, f/11, ISO 100, three exposures [1/125, 1/30, 1/8] processed in Photomatix and Aperture.
I have been back to redo this and will post, post-processing, if there is any improvement.
Scott
-
Some revisions:
Glacialis: I partially cropped out and darkened the competing mountains.
Acaulis: I got the subject in the middle, and a greater DOF using hyperfocal focusing. Technically better perhaps, but I like how the first version does a better job of conveying the small size and sparseness of the flowers.
Thanks again, everyone.
Scott
-
... Slobodan - 10 mm (10-22 mm Canon lens) on a 50D, f/11...
Then it is an issue of focusing on the wrong point. At such a super-wide angle, and with f/11, if focused hyperfocally (i.e. to 1.56 ft), the DOF would be from 0.78 ft to infinity (and beyond, as Buzz Lightyear would say :))
Now, lets assume your closest flower was at 0.78 ft (or 9.36"), although I think it was further than that. But for the sake of argument, assume it was that close, and assume you actually focused on it (as I think you did). In that case, your DOF shrinks terribly, to just one feet (!), from 0.52 ft to 1.53 ft. The same scene, everything else the same, but the focusing point and hyperfocal distance make all the difference in the world. (Calculations based on the Depth of Field Calculator (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html)).
-
lets assume your closest flower was at 0.78 ft (or 9.36")...and assume you actually focused on it (as I think you did).
Yup:
"One common mistake here is to focus on the nearest foreground element" http://www.barbeephoto.com/articles/hyperfocal/hyperfocal.htm
Thanks for the reinforcement!
Scott
-
Glacialis2.jpg -- I guess the flowers gain some shelter from the large stone, which is a pity because the large stone competes for attention with the flowers. I think either version of the photo would be more successful if the area around the flowers had been that gravel or coarse sand or pebbles, leaving the flowers as the most prominent object in the foreground.