Reading mode: Light Dark

How close to shoot? (White flowers)

Go to last post
G

Gerry Winterbourne

Forum Pro
Messages
19,063
Solutions
73
Reaction score
13,291
Location
Berkshire, UK
I often wonder about the best way to present flowers in pictures. We have a patch of Ornithogalum umbellatum (Star-of-Bethlehem) flowers in our garden that brighten it up on a dull day. OK to see but not very impressive in a photo

(K-7, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 at 10mm with some flash)



and not much better at 20mm



but sort of OK at 35mm (this one with K20, DA35/2.8)



So how about getting a bit closer? Back to K-7, DA*200 + 31mm extension tube, same tripod position as the others



and then DA70/2.4 + 31mm tube but closer to achieve focus



Next I moved to a different flower closer to the path. DA70 + 31mm tube again



and finally the same position and 31mm tube with Sigma 105/2.8



By this time the day was cooling and the flower was closing visibly between shots so I didn't bother with longer tubes or TC; and in any case I don't think anything tighter would have worked.
--
Gerry


First camera 1953, first Pentax 1983, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
 
Fun series and nice concept. I think purely close up pictures are full of impact and Wauw factor, but wide view point has a role too, here I think shooting at a time where the light has something special is necessary to get some drama, or maybe going low so the viewpoint is from the perspective of a squirrel but still high enough to see out over the tops of the closest flowers. It's tricky and fun to play with point of view combined with Fov mixes up the little greys it does!!

Thanks for posting

Regards

Brent
--
Changing light gives me the possibility of seeing the world from a new
perspective.
For me photography is a tool for capturing these insights, for reflection and
sharing.
 
Nice series Gerry, tutorial quality. For me 2nd last is my like ie fill the frame with the whole flower but then there's no rules and some of the best shots break them.
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
 
Brentliris said:
Fun series and nice concept.
Click to expand...
Thanks Brent
Brentliris said:
I think purely close up pictures are full of impact and Wauw factor, but wide view point has a role too, here I think shooting at a time where the light has something special is necessary to get some drama
Click to expand...
You're right in principle about needing more interesting light. Unfortunately, much as I love my K20 and K-7 they just don't have the DR to save the detail in bright, sunny white flowers and the darker areas.

They work fine when you don't want the dark details, though


Brentliris said:
or maybe going low so the viewpoint is from the perspective of a squirrel but still high enough to see out over the tops of the closest flowers. It's tricky and fun to play with point of view combined with Fov mixes up the little greys it does!!
Click to expand...
The ornithogalums in my OP are slightly shorter than their neighbours so going low wouldn't work for them. It does woork, of course, in other situations. That working of the grey cells is one of the fascinations of gardem shooting for me.



--
Gerry


First camera 1953, first Pentax 1983, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
 
ozdean said:
Nice series Gerry, tutorial quality.
Click to expand...
Thanks Dean
ozdean said:
For me 2nd last is my like ie fill the frame with the whole flower but then there's no rules and some of the best shots break them.
Click to expand...
My favourite too. A big majority of my flower shots are single bloom but I think it's important at least to try a different perspective. I knew in my heart that the ujtra-close view wouldn't worl with the ornithogalum. That sort of shot really needs a lot more drama like this crocosmia



--
Gerry


First camera 1953, first Pentax 1983, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
 
Gerry

There's no rule about how close IMO. The ultra-closeups are interesting for botanists and photographers, and the more panoramic shot might also provide info about the place the flower is growing.

Here's one of mine that I took on a very dull day and I didn't have a tripd, so macro was out of the question. It's not really the kind shot most people accept as a flower shot, but I like the distribution of colour and texture in it. The flowers were planted in a vineyard.



Adam

--

'Photography is nothing else than a writing of light' - Eduardo Cadava (and a whole lot of other stuff!)

http://adamaitken.blogspot.com
http://www.pbase.com/adam_aitken

PPG - http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/adamaitken
 
Hi Gerry,

I personally prefer the close up shots. They better show the beauty of the flower.

Here are some shots of the same flower (Ornithogalum umbellatum) taken with K7 and Tamron 90mm. But they were taken in the dark and I didn't manage to get the light as good as your last two shots (white petals are over exposed).

Yannick











 
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Brentliris said:
Fun series and nice concept.
Click to expand...
Thanks Brent
Gerry Winterbourne said:
I think purely close up pictures are full of impact and Wauw factor, but wide view point has a role too, here I think shooting at a time where the light has something special is necessary to get some drama
Click to expand...
You're right in principle about needing more interesting light. Unfortunately, much as I love my K20 and K-7 they just don't have the DR to save the detail in bright, sunny white flowers and the darker areas.
Click to expand...
Weeell the whole thing about DR is an interesting subject, and one that I have mulled over a great deal, I feel that a limited DR has some charms as well!! If we can see every detail in a scene with a lot of complexity it can work, but just as often it can be overloaded with information, allowing the dark areas in a scene to be dark can create breathing space in an image, strengthing the composition and focusing the attention on important aspects.

Another example relevant to our topic here is a broad viewpoint in a garden, the interconnetion of the bright points of flowers creates a third element, similiar to when we are star gazing; here we avidly join the points of stars in a constellation to orient ourselves finding with glee figures from the Zodiac, likewise we see a series of bright dots in a garden scene and the mind eye flits from one to another joining the space between the points of light filling it out with a movement of our eyes, this adds drama, though not at the forefront of conscious its an engaging factor when viewing this kind of scene spattered with equal sized ellements.

Space and limiting information through consious creative use of limited DR gives the minds eye rest and consequently activating the viewers own imagination.

Regards

Brent
Gerry Winterbourne said:
They work fine when you don't want the dark details, though


Gerry Winterbourne said:
or maybe going low so the viewpoint is from the perspective of a squirrel but still high enough to see out over the tops of the closest flowers. It's tricky and fun to play with point of view combined with Fov mixes up the little greys it does!!
Click to expand...
The ornithogalums in my OP are slightly shorter than their neighbours so going low wouldn't work for them. It does woork, of course, in other situations. That working of the grey cells is one of the fascinations of gardem shooting for me.



--
Gerry


First camera 1953, first Pentax 1983, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
Click to expand...
--
Changing light gives me the possibility of seeing the world from a new
perspective.
For me photography is a tool for capturing these insights, for reflection and
sharing.
 
Adam Aitken said:
Gerry

There's no rule about how close IMO. The ultra-closeups are interesting for botanists and photographers, and the more panoramic shot might also provide info about the place the flower is growing.
Click to expand...
I agree, unless there's just one rule - shoot what looks good. And that's always debatable - my wife can't understand why I take so many single bloom shots when she wants wider views of the garden. I wasn't intending to find a generic rule, but exploring the thought process in a particular situation.
Adam Aitken said:
Here's one of mine that I took on a very dull day and I didn't have a tripd, so macro was out of the question. It's not really the kind shot most people accept as a flower shot, but I like the distribution of colour and texture in it. The flowers were planted in a vineyard.

Click to expand...
And you've proved your point - broken the "rule" about not blowing highlights but still produced a good shot with lots of interest. On top of that you've shown that the gardening rule "don't mix pink and yellow" is nonsense too.

--
Gerry


First camera 1953, first Pentax 1983, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
 
yannick1974 said:
I personally prefer the close up shots. They better show the beauty of the flower.
Click to expand...
Me too in this series.
yannick1974 said:
Here are some shots of the same flower (Ornithogalum umbellatum) taken with K7 and Tamron 90mm. But they were taken in the dark and I didn't manage to get the light as good as your last two shots (white petals are over exposed).
Click to expand...
Win some, lose some. Mine show the details, yours show how luminous these flowers can be. Part of the reason you've lost detail is diffraction - f/22 gives plenty of DOF but it does soften the image a bit.

There's no great secret to getting exposure right: just take lots of shots at different settings. Things like spot metering and green button can get you near but with these high-contrast subject I still need a fair amount of trial and error. I took 49 shots to get the seven I posted. The semi-close ups were easiest - only five exposures for two keepers.
yannick1974 said:








Click to expand...
--
Gerry


First camera 1953, first Pentax 1983, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
 
Gerry

Interesting topic - one I myself thought about when taking this shot. I took several shots with varied results, but i liked this one the best.





Krishna
 
Hi Gerry. For me, the first three shots are really difficult subjects to capture effectively. There is so much going on and so many things to draw the eye that the image never comes together as a coherent statment. When I take shots like these, I am very very rarely pleased with the result and I have great respect for the folks that can pull it off. Perhaps shooting from a lower angle and getting a stronger fore ground element and/or using a shallower depth of field to help draw the eye and simplify the image. If you want that much DOF in your image then I think you need some kind of visual motif or pattern to unify the image.

Just my two cents.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/doug456/
 
Djouglee said:
Hi Gerry. For me, the first three shots are really difficult subjects to capture effectively. There is so much going on and so many things to draw the eye that the image never comes together as a coherent statment. When I take shots like these, I am very very rarely pleased with the result and I have great respect for the folks that can pull it off. Perhaps shooting from a lower angle and getting a stronger fore ground element and/or using a shallower depth of field to help draw the eye and simplify the image. If you want that much DOF in your image then I think you need some kind of visual motif or pattern to unify the image.
Click to expand...
I agree totally. My wife can't understand why I mostly shoot single blooms: to her it's the garden that conts, not the individual flowers. Just standing there the patch of flowers really stands out and I took this series of shots partly to demonstrate why that doesn't work in a picture.

Once I'd taken them I thought it would be interesting to show the series here. However, with the forum made up of photographers it's not surprising that the preference is not for the wider views.

--
Gerry


First camera 1953, first Pentax 1983, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
 
Nice series. I prefer the closer views as well. The wide angle just doesn't fill the frame and it is hard to determine what the subject is. You might also try a long lens ( macro or not ) at a low angle and try to get some of the color in the background; such as the blue and greens, using an open aperture such as f/5.6 or smaller.

By the way, I've never used extension tubes and would like to purchase a set. Do you have a recommendation? I've seen plastic as well as metal, but would prefer metal. Will they work with all lenses? Can you autofocus with them?

Thanks for sharing and for any suggestions for extension tubes.
--

'I help people see the little things in life that they miss when they are looking at the big picture.'

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/toddrollins

http://flickr.com/photos/musicman67/
 
Gerry Winterbourne said:
... there's just one rule - shoot what looks good. And that's always debatable - my wife can't understand why I take so many single bloom shots when she wants wider views of the garden. I wasn't intending to find a generic rule, but exploring the thought process in a particular situation.
Click to expand...
I'm with you Gerry.
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Click to expand...
And you've proved your point - broken the "rule" about not blowing highlights but still produced a good shot with lots of interest. On top of that you've shown that the gardening rule "don't mix pink and yellow" is nonsense too.
Click to expand...
Ah, blown highlights! That was the overcast cloudy day, and I only had one angle - up. I was standing a meter or so under the embankment on which the flowers were growing. I didn't know about the "pink and yellow rule" either!

Adam

--

'Photography is nothing else than a writing of light' - Eduardo Cadava (and a whole lot of other stuff!)

http://adamaitken.blogspot.com
http://www.pbase.com/adam_aitken

PPG - http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/adamaitken
 
musicman67 said:
Nice series. I prefer the closer views as well. The wide angle just doesn't fill the frame and it is hard to determine what the subject is. You might also try a long lens ( macro or not ) at a low angle and try to get some of the color in the background; such as the blue and greens, using an open aperture such as f/5.6 or smaller.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I agree about the choice of shots. This is what I said in my reply to Doug: "My wife can't understand why I mostly shoot single blooms: to her it's the garden that conts, not the individual flowers. Just standing there the patch of flowers really stands out and I took this series of shots partly to demonstrate why that doesn't work in a picture.

Once I'd taken them I thought it would be interesting to show the series here. However, with the forum made up of photographers it's not surprising that the preference is not for the wider views."

This particular scene just didn't lend itself to low-level shooting and I wanted to keep a similar viewpoint for all the focal lengths. I think this is the kind of thing you're suggesting


musicman67 said:
By the way, I've never used extension tubes and would like to purchase a set. Do you have a recommendation? I've seen plastic as well as metal, but would prefer metal. Will they work with all lenses? Can you autofocus with them?
Click to expand...
I got my extension tubes from this guy in Poland; I don't know how far he'll ship them

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Macro-Automatic-Extension-Tube-Rings-Pentax-K-/220594569647?cmd=ViewItem&pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item335c7601af

This set is fully automatic for non-SDM lenses but it's reallyonly the aperture that you want to communicate. By the time you are in rextension tube territory you really want to use MF anyway.

As the only thing the tubes do is move the lens further from the body without having any optics of their won it doesn't really matter what they're made of but communicating aperture is a big help. You can, though, get much cheaper tubes that don't communicate anything.

One point about using them: by pushing the lens away from the body they alter the distances over which you can focus: you always lose infinity focus and close focus distance changes too. The change depends on ratio of tube to focal length, so a 31mm tube on 200 brings everything closer but doesn't really affect the way you work. By the time you put 65mm of tube on 100 the focus range is down to a couple of millimeters and it's easier to focus by moving the subject. All good fun but a bew way of working.

Here's one of the biggest magnificatibns I've managed 0 Sigma 105/2.8, 65mm of tubes and 2X TC



More here http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne/micromacro

--
Gerry


First camera 1953, first Pentax 1983, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top