Gone in a day

[dai]

I feel that something is amiss but I can't quite figure out what. Is the color too pale? Is it over exposed? Any critique is welcome.

Thanks in advance.




Canon EOS 450D
Exposure 0.002 sec (1/640)
Aperture f/5.6
Focal Length 55 mm
ISO Speed 100
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire
X-Resolution 72 dpi
Y-Resolution 72 dpi

[BigFuzzy]

It seems really flat, lacking in contrast.

If you have LR, try boosting the "Clarity' setting or else, try boosting the "blacks".
Otherwise, quite nice image.

[chicagojohn]

Originally Posted by dai

I feel that something is amiss but I can't quite figure out what. Is the color too pale? Is it over exposed? Any critique is welcome.

Thanks in advance.
Canon EOS 450D
Exposure 0.002 sec (1/640)
Aperture f/5.6
Focal Length 55 mm
ISO Speed 100
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire
X-Resolution 72 dpi
Y-Resolution 72 dpi

Hi dai,

While I share Big Fuzzy's perception initially, I also think this shot has potential. First of all, I like the color and the prominence of the stamens and pistils or whaterver in sharper focus and located in a sort of rule-of-thirds position.

What I did with your image was to put it in PSE and do a levels adjustment first. The histogram indicates a smidgin of space on the highlight side, and expanding that all the way to the right helps.

Secondly, moving the central point just a little to the left further lightens the image and helps with the flattness Big Fuzzy notes.

Thirdly, I did a small amount of sharpening and this really accentuates the prominence of the stamens and pistils.

However, let us consider how some of this could have been accomplished without post processing. Unless the wind was blowing, or you had too much coffee before shooting, you didn't need to shoot at 1/640. That would stop the swing of Tiger Woods.

Let's count the EV units you could have made available for use in stopping down to achieve better depth of field. Ready; starting at 1/640, 1/300, 1/125, 1/60, 1/30. You could probably hand hold at 1/30 s with no problem and especially using a anti-shake function if available on your camera.

So this is, not counting the starting position, +4EV or 4 stops. Each time, you double the amount of light hitting the sensor.

You were at f/5.6. The lower the f/number the shallower the depth of field. As it stands only a few of the closest details in the central portion of the flower are in sharp focus. So let's count the EV or stops you could have taken advantage of to increase depth of field by making the aperture smaller in diameter by going higher in f/number; f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22.

That is -4EV since each time the diamter is narrowed by the square root of 2, the light is cut in half (because the area of the hole is proportional to the diameter squared).

Now, somewhere in this range of 4 EV I bet you would have found a sweet spot between maximizing the apparent sharpness of the central portion that is projecting outward and the petals in the background. And, perhaps, you may have also found that you could have, say stopped down 2 EV for sharpness and up 3 EV in shutter speed to get more luminance into the image.

In my opinion, when you can, you should always try to experiment like this in balancing aperture and shutter speed while keeping ISO as low as possible, which you did well here. Only increase ISO when necessary if you cannot get the right balance with aperture and shutter speed.

Again, a bigger f/number is a smaller aperture diameter and a greater depth of field. Shutter speed would be the dominant factor only when you either want to stop action or show motion, neither of which is a factor with this image.

Hope this helps.

[marieremick]

Chicagojohn,

You mention in your post that you put Dai's image into PSE. Can you post your tweak of Dai's image or is that not allowed on this site?

[chicagojohn]

Originally Posted by marieremick

Chicagojohn,

You mention in your post that you put Dai's image into PSE. Can you post your tweak of Dai's image or is that not allowed on this site?

I've seen it done, and I would be willing to do it, I suppose, but only with the explicit permission of the OP. In my view the image belongs to the OP and while I might do an experiment with it to make sure what I am about to say is veridical, I would not be comfortable actually posting it.

[dai]

Originally Posted by chicagojohn

I've seen it done, and I would be willing to do it, I suppose, but only with the explicit permission of the OP. In my view the image belongs to the OP and while I might do an experiment with it to make sure what I am about to say is veridical, I would not be comfortable actually posting it.

I'd love to see it too. I'm a newbie and has negligible knowledge on PP. Thanks for the detailed critique.