Snowdrops au Canada

[luxborealis]

I couldn't resist photographing these snowdrops in our garden. They are not native and are nothing like what our UK friends see (usually two months earlier than this!), but it's about the best we can do given our significantly colder winters here in Ontario.

D800E w/ Tamron 70-200/2.8 @ 180mm: ƒ32 + POL, -1EV; natural light of a bright overcast, misty sky (beautiful light for this kind of work); tripod

I'm always of two minds about including shooting info as i notice it's not often included on these forums. I've included it here because when I was new to photography, I found books from photographers like John Shaw, who included the info, amazingly helpful. While the settings can lead to recipe-shooting, when learning, it's helpful to know what works. After all, we can't always be re-inventing the wheel, especially when it's a rather documentary-style photograph like this is.

BTW, I chose 180mm as it seems to be ever so slightly sharper than 200mm at this short working distance. And yes, while my use of ƒ32 does reduce sharpness due to diffraction, it provides the DOF needed for this photograph. A bit of extra sharpening works wonders to clean up edges.

[Lloyd Mayeda]

Thanks Terry for both the lovely photo and helpful shooting information!

I always click on your threads as they include technically well presented captures and interesting commentary.

[Jeremy Roussak]

D800E w/ Tamron 70-200/2.8 @ 180mm: ƒ32 + POL, -1EV; natural light of a bright overcast, misty sky (beautiful light for this kind of work); tripod

I'm always of two minds about including shooting info as i notice it's not often included on these forums.

I find technical information such as this to be interesting and helpful, so please keep posting it.

POL?

Jeremy

[luxborealis]

POL=Polarizer

[Jeremy Roussak]

POL=Polarizer

Thanks. Of course.

Jeremy

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...provides the DOF needed for this photograph...

Sorry, Terry, I find it too much.

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

BTW, I chose 180mm as it seems to be ever so slightly sharper than 200mm at this short working distance. And yes, while my use of ƒ32 does reduce sharpness due to diffraction, it provides the DOF needed for this photograph. A bit of extra sharpening works wonders to clean up edges.

Terry, have you tried focus stacking?

I find it works best if you use a medium to long zoom, to allow you stand back and then zoom all the way back into the shot. Then shoot a series of say a half dozen frames at around f/11 and then let PS do its thing, with perhaps a little tweaking to the masks it creates for the best effect.

Another trick that can sometimes work with shots like this with a quite a lot of white subjects in them, but is so easy to go over the top and make it all look a little bit twee, is with your final and flattened focus stack as a background layer, duplicate the layer twice so you now have three layers, then slightly over sharpen the top layer and add a glow to the middle layer with Gaussian blur and then blend then all back together with the opacity sliders, something like 30% for the sharp layer on top, 60% for the blurred layer in the middle and 100% for the untouched background layer. This will keep the image sharp, lower the tones of the darker areas and bring the lighter areas forward and make the shot look a little bit more 3D.

Nice shot BTW, so I don't agree with Slobodan at all, as the shot is very, very nice.

Dave

[luxborealis]

Sorry, Terry, I find it too much.

The background does seem a bit too well-defined now that I look at it more objectively.

Dave - I made a focus stacking series with this setup, I just haven't processed them. Maybe it's laziness or not wanting to spend more time than I already do in front of a screen, but I don't go much for the amount of work you've described.

[Paulo Bizarro]

I like it as it is.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I like it as it is.

Me too.

[maddogmurph]

I might consider a macro lens for this.  If I had one of course... I've been considering getting one.  And it's spring...