Flower C&C

superflyninja

thanks

l pearse

Very striking and plenty of colour...:)
What did you use to capture this ?

Dragan

Very nice background colouring as well!

Nice shot.

superflyninja

l pearse wrote: »

Very striking and plenty of colour...:)
What did you use to capture this ?

just my kit lense(17.5mm-44mm)
took it on manual,zoomed right in with wide open aperature.

AnCatDubh

its very nice - i love the bokeh.

in terms of critique - if its not my crappy lcd monitor, the 3 or 4 buds/flowers which are the main subject are a little out of focus probably falling outside of a very narrow depth of field

can't tell with no exif present but just wondering how open was the aperture and roughly what distance to subject were you?

in addition i think the subject (3/4 buds) is slightly under exposed - essentially a little dark (again on this monitor i could be wrong).

i like the way the light is captured on the anthers of the lowest flower.

Overall for me - nice, a little dark in some places but beautiful bokeh and some nice highlights.

superflyninja

AnCatDubh wrote: »

its very nice - i love the bokeh.

in terms of critique - if its not my crappy lcd monitor, the 3 or 4 buds/flowers which are the main subject are a little out of focus probably falling outside of a very narrow depth of field

can't tell with no exif present but just wondering how open was the aperture and roughly what distance to subject were you?

in addition i think the subject (3/4 buds) is slightly under exposed - essentially a little dark (again on this monitor i could be wrong).

i like the way the light is captured on the anthers of the lowest flower.

Overall for me - nice, a little dark in some places but beautiful bokeh and some nice highlights.

exif:
Make: OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Model: E-410
Shutter Speed: 1/100 second
F Number: F/5.6
Focal Length: 45 mm
ISO Speed: 100
Date Picture Taken: Sep 20, 2008, 2:49:53 PM

nope yer right the the buds are a little dark.the flowers are slightly out of focus...but the shot was handheld....If I shot raw woudl the info on the darker parts of the image be more easily recoverable?

AnCatDubh

yeah a RAW (at least in general terms) would allow some greater flexibility / potential in recovering under and over exposed exposures. But you'd still have scope with what you have posted in JPG. You do have a very bright area (top left hand side) which you'd need to be careful of. You may want to selectively brighten an area or blend separate layers together (one bright / one as is).

The focus issue may be depth of field? At 45mm and f/5.6 depending on your distance to subject you may have only had an inch or two to work with which could have been very tricky to manage.

Cheers.

superflyninja

AnCatDubh wrote: »

yeah a RAW (at least in general terms) would allow some greater flexibility / potential in recovering under and over exposed exposures. But you'd still have scope with what you have posted in JPG. You do have a very bright area (top left hand side) which you'd need to be careful of. You may want to selectively brighten an area or blend separate layers together (one bright / one as is).

The focus issue may be depth of field? At 45mm and f/5.6 depending on your distance to subject you may have only had an inch or two to work with which could have been very tricky to manage.

Cheers.

ah right...see i know raw doesnt include processing like white balance etc but you know when people make a hdr out of one raw...how does that work? you use the same aperature/shutter speed etc as you would for a jpg? thanks for the advice on the pic though.when i get a chance ill redo the PP on it...

Borderfox

I use the auto setting on the camera to take three/five shots a stop apart, should be in your menu. You can also take a couple of different exposures from a single raw but the first method gives better results.

superflyninja

Borderfox wrote: »

I use the auto setting on the camera to take three/five shots a stop apart, should be in your menu. You can also take a couple of different exposures from a single raw but the first method gives better results.

ah yeah that what im wondering how does a raw capture more image information? is it because processing done on the camera looses soem info?

Tarakiwa

Really love this!

Well done!

superflyninja

Tarakiwa wrote: »

Really love this!

Well done!

thank you kind sir!

TelePaul

Think there's a slight focusing issue but given you weren't using a macro it's very pretty. What are these flowers called anyways?

AnCatDubh

superflyninja wrote: »

ah yeah that what im wondering how does a raw capture more image information? is it because processing done on the camera looses soem info?

Yes (as far as i understand it). If your camera allows you to shoot RAW, it can store the information off the camera's sensor directly in the resulting data file. If shooting in JPG, the camera analyses what comes off it's sensor and processes it into the JPG format. JPG is a technical format and standard. As a technical format, it has not the capacity to store all the information from the sensor simply because all sensors are different - hence it is difficult to standardise. Adobe have produced an documented RAW format DNG which manufacturers are beginning to support.

But in essence, your camera processes the RAW data to JPG format and discards what doesn't go into the JPG data file - gone forever.

The merits or otherwise of the RAW format are well discussed in threads on boards and practically every other photography format - you'd find loads of info on it through the search. (PS - it always causes a row!)

superflyninja

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Yes (as far as i understand it). If your camera allows you to shoot RAW, it can store the information off the camera's sensor directly in the resulting data file. If shooting in JPG, the camera analyses what comes off it's sensor and processes it into the JPG format. JPG is a technical format and standard. As a technical format, it has not the capacity to store all the information from the sensor simply because all sensors are different - hence it is difficult to standardise. Adobe have produced an documented RAW format DNG which manufacturers are beginning to support.

But in essence, your camera processes the RAW data to JPG format and discards what doesn't go into the JPG data file - gone forever.

The merits or otherwise of the RAW format are well discussed in threads on boards and practically every other photography format - you'd find loads of info on it through the search. (PS - it always causes a row!)

yeah i knew jpeg is a lossy format.....but right then time for me to start shooting raw.ive put it off for long enough.I presume cs3 handles raw files without conversion or anything?

Phototoxin

The bookah = teh secs but its not totally sharp though with full aperture it mightn't be. Maybe try to get a compromise between sharpness and bookah factor with the aperture.

superflyninja

Phototoxin wrote: »

The bookah = teh secs but its not totally sharp though with full aperture it mightn't be. Maybe try to get a compromise between sharpness and bookah factor with the aperture.

ooookay...first things first a bookah?

TelePaul

superflyninja wrote: »

ooookay...first things first a bookah?

Basically a shallow depth of field/blurred background. It's actually 'Bokeh'.

superflyninja

TelePaul wrote: »

Basically a shallow depth of field/blurred background. It's actually 'Bokeh'.

ah cheers.....I thought it was a part of a flower of summat....
thanks

AnCatDubh

superflyninja wrote: »

yeah i knew jpeg is a lossy format.....but right then time for me to start shooting raw.ive put it off for long enough.I presume cs3 handles raw files without conversion or anything?

RAW will produce really large files by comparison and are more time consuming to work with - won't matter for a single take but you will notice it if processing a batch of maybe 200 shots.

JPG is still very useful - depending on your equipment your camera may not have the capacity to shoot continuous RAW (buffer issues). If shooting sport and you want to capture the action you may need to fire a blast of shots to take out only the best. JPG because of its smaller relative size can do this whereas you need the right gear to do it with RAW.

Calina had a good post on this in the past with "Kite Surfers" (if you do a search) which convinced me that JPG definitely still has its place. So don't turn your back on it altogether - horses for courses.

I'm not a CS3 user but i'd assume it did manage the raw conversion. The Gimp uses UFRAW as a plugin to handle it. Eitherways the software which came with your camera will at least process it - ironically to JPG(!) but at least you've got some extra control with an earlier intervention with RAW.

superflyninja

Phototoxin wrote: »

The bookah = teh secs but its not totally sharp though with full aperture it mightn't be. Maybe try to get a compromise between sharpness and bookah factor with the aperture.

ah I understand your post now.thanks!!!