Some flower shots from my new Macro lens

[janet Smith]

Hi everyone

Here are a few from my new Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro lens, I welcome your comments, good and bad, my concerns about the first one (Crinodendron) is the bottom right hand side, I would be interested to see what can be done with it.....

I look forward to your comments etc.....

 

[Barry Johnston]

Great Photos...

Great Photos Janet !!

Personally, I'm don't think there is much that can be done with that 1st photo, other than crop the offending bit out, but that would make the photo too narrow. Possibly, I would have used a smaller aperture, and/or taken the photo from a slightly different angle perhaps, if that was at all possible.

I don't have this lens yet, but am looking forward to getting one. All the photos I have seen with this lens are outstanding....

Regards,
Baz

BTW, what camera were you using to take these....?

 

[janet Smith]

Hi Barry

Thanks for your kind comments, the crinodendron was taken with the smallest possible i.e. f2.8, and I was unable to get a better angle than this one. The plant was not in my garden or I would have cut a bit off to separate it from the rest of the bush, but I was not able to do this. I was thinking more along the lines of possibly cloning the area out..... I'll have to have a play with it and see what I can do, but I don't have much patience with PS I'm always in too much of a hurry......

 

[Barry Johnston]

Apertures...

Hello again Janet,

......'a smaller aperture' meaning a larger number, ie. f/2.8 is a smaller number, but a larger aperture, which will give you a narrower 'depth of field'. At f/5.6 the aperture is smaller than at f/2.8, but a larger number, hence a wider depth of field....

Sorry if I stated the obvious here, but I wasn't sure if you understood my first comment. You needed a wider DoF, ie a larger number. Cloning would have been a last resort I think, because it would have upset the balance of you photo... I am still amazed at the sharpness and the vibrant colours...

What camera did you use?

Regards,

Barry.

 

[janet Smith]

Hi Barry

Yes of course, thanks for pointing this out.....just an absent minded moment. These were taken with my Canon 20D, am now using 5D, will post some from that in the next few days, when I've more time.

Jan

 

[nicolas claris]

Bonjour janet

this is my take…

Despite the obvious, I didn't do any saturation, only converted the file to sRGB… Is the one you have posted in Adobe RGB or any other color space?

I only have cloned a piece of flower and sharpen all a little bit…

 

[janet Smith]

Bonjour Nic

Thank you, it's really interesting to see what someone else can do, I hadn't thought of cloning another piece of flower, I think you have improved upon it enormously, clever you, and yes it is Adobe RGB. I will have a go at replicating this, thanks again for your input and for what I think is a very clever solution.....

 

[nicolas claris]

Thank you janet for the nice words, although IMO there's nothing clever, just knowing that
to enhance background you need to have a strong foreground (reverse is also true!).

You had both in your pic, it just needed a little help…

BTW, I don't know if you're on a Mac or a PC, but be aware that all your posts on the Internet should be in sRGB. Only Safari, AFAIK, on Mac (oh! yes on PCs also now, I forgot that) is colorsync compliant… But the vast majority of viewers is using Internet Explorer on PC… so keep going posting imaes within sRGB…

 

[janet Smith]

Hi again Nic

More really useful information, thank you very much indeed, have a great evening......

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi everyone

Here are a few from my new Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro lens, I welcome your comments, good and bad, my concerns about the first one (Crinodendron) is the bottom right hand side, I would be interested to see what can be done with it.....

Janet and Nicolas,

This is, to my way of looking at things, an excellent example of where one would like an old lens with vignetting. The classical painters knew what the eye needs. Also, this is not a commercial picture, but part of a thin silk layer of a dream. So let's proceed on this biased point of view.

I found the original pictures softness attractive. The indefiniteness of the lower right empowers and add force and sense of importance to the central flowers. This is lost when the flowers are cloned and made beautifully clear. This addition, to me at leasts dstracts and deflates our interest in the center so it's not a good idea.

The sharpened version is too harsh and brings out the over saturation artifact in the blurred flower in the lower right. Also the picture needs some burning in of the outside to draw the eyes inwards.

The right-lateral area is rather non-functional and removing it enhances the image. A gray border sets the image off from the white page better. I have selectively sharpened a few key elements of the two main flowers.

That's it! Voila!

Asher

 

[Angela Weil]

Some flower shots....

Funny, how you guys are trying to improve the pictures.
I enjoy the original images of the flowers immensly. I like the subdued colors, the sharpness is just right: because the images are on the soft side. It works for the subject. Flowers are fragile, tender things - they don't know how to bite back. The images convey that feeling just fine.
Angela

 

[Ray West]

Hi Asher,

If you want to create the effect before the image hits the sensor, instead of afterwards in photoshop, it is so very easy to make filters to damage the light, in the same way as in film days, since now you can instantly check the effect. Perspex or glass with vaseline, scratched with sandpaper, spraypainted or whatever.

The thing that also sort of interests me is why we still use a rectangular frame, harping back to the mural painting, stretching of canvas sort of era? Why not a frame that is the shape of the subject, or any shape you desire, or just fade out the edges? Of course, there is a limitation in showing this as an image on a white display screen background, but not many boundaries being pushed.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[janet Smith]

Hi Asher

You must be such a romantic! "part of a thin silk layer of a dream" what a divine description, my memory of taking this photograph is one almost as beautiful, the Crinodendron in question was in one of my favourite gardens in Scotland, Leckmelm, Nr Ullappol, it is over 8 acres and there was only myself and husband Paul there, we spent a few lovely (but midge bitten) hours there, so your description is greatly appreciated........

On to more mundane matters.....I am now completely confused, liking both yours and Nic's version, it is so interesting to me to see what you have both done, and you both make very valid points, I agree with you about the softness/idefinate gentleness of the right hand side.

Thank you so much for giving your time to do this, and for your lovely descriptions, I will have another play with this myself if I get time over the next few days. Best wishes.....

 

[janet Smith]

Hi Angela

Thank you for your lovely comments too, they're very much appreciated, best wishes......

 

[janet Smith]

Hi Ray

Another great idea! I like the idea of playing with filters, it's something I did years ago and had forgotten about, this is the great thing about being a member of this Forum, all the creative ideas that I either hadn't considered or had forgotten...... Thank you.

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

Many ways

Janet,

I love all the versions of the image. Personally, when I take this lens out to shoot flowers, I take many shots in as many directions as I can. Sometimes it is very hard to choose which one l like best. Flowers are like that. You can arrange a vase and have dozens of images from one vase.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Janet,

The preparations I have made are modest, but I believe absolutely needed to try to transmit to the viewer the emphasis that the human eye, through the higher cortex, applies to different parts of the image. Unless one is doing police, documentation or commercial work that require or accept as is from the camera files, photographers should be working on their images to optimize their own personal vision.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Janet,

The preparations I have made are modest, but I believe absolutely needed to try to transmit to the viewer the emphasis that the human eye, through the higher cortex, applies to different parts of the image.

Unless one is doing police, documentation or commercial work that require or accept as is from the camera files, photographers should be working on their images to optimize their own personal vision.


Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Janet,

The preparations I have made are modest, but I believe absolutely needed to try to transmit to the viewer the emphasis that the human eye, through the higher cortex, applies to different parts of the image.

Unless one is doing police, documentation or commercial work that require or accept "as is from the camera" files, we, photographers, should probably be working on our images to optimize their own personal vision. Most of us know this, but some seem to still think that cameras with right settings make pictures. That, IMHO, is a trap that holds back the potential of the images we try to deliver.

Asher

 

[janet Smith]

Hi Kath

Yes, I agree entirely, I tend to take loads at different apertures, and bracket exposures, if I'm in difficult light outside. I like playing with depth of field to create a different look, I tend to enjoy wide apertures and their resulting shallow depth of field, I like the gentleness of the resulting image, although my husband Paul, always likes the ones taken at f11/f16 where all is sharp.

 

[janet Smith]

Hi Asher

Again, thank you.....

 

[nicolas claris]

Janet and Nicolas,

This is, to my way of looking at things, an excellent example of where one would like an old lens with vignetting. The classical painters knew what the eye needs. Also, this is not a commercial picture, but part of a thin silk layer of a dream. So let's proceed on this biased point of view.

I found the original pictures softness attractive. The indefiniteness of the lower right empowers and add force and sense of importance to the central flowers. This is lost when the flowers are cloned and made beautifully clear. This addition, to me at leasts dstracts and deflates our interest in the center so it's not a good idea.

The sharpened version is too harsh and brings out the over saturation artifact in the blurred flower in the lower right. Also the picture needs some burning in of the outside to draw the eyes inwards.

The right-lateral area is rather non-functional and removing it enhances the image. A gray border sets the image off from the white page better. I have selectively sharpened a few key elements of the two main flowers.

That's it! Voila!

Asher

Asher

What is important in such a picture is the balance well betwen fore and background.

This is what you have done with cropping the image.
This is what I have done with cloning a bit of foreground flower.

With our different wy of thinking we had the same analysis but a different way to achieve it…

It is quite funny as this is also related to your comment about the original framing Vs PProd dicussion that arrised later.

My job may require a lot of PProd, but I always try to minimize it on the maximum and trying to "get it all" when shooting is a good way for lessering PProd.

This has nothing to do with the genre of photography, this have to do with each of us way of bringing our vision "up".

90% of the time I know in advance (or at least when framing/composing) what I'll bring back and what I will need or not to PProcess.

Doing a lot in PProd is just not MY way, but I understand it can be for others, just the result is important.
After all, doing a "collage" is a good exemple of an excellent (well not all the time!) Post Prod work…

But please let the police catching thieves, I've not seen any in OPF ;-)

As for your comment about the harsh colors Vs softness, once again you have not read me to the end… I did point out the color profile issue…

Below is the very same image that I posted earlier, but I have assigned (and not convert to) sRGB profile. Amazing, no?

-----------------------------------1st take convert to sRGB-----------------------------------------------------------same but assigned sRGB

 

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks my great French friend for your take on getting to the goal of a balanced image. While I still have major discomfort with a sharp cloned flower at bottom right as I find it a gross distraction, your demonstartion of assigning rather than converting to sRGB, simply is uplifting and faith restoring in overcoming the artffacts that we see in posting carefully prepared images.

We always say "Convert to sRGB not assign"! Why is it the opposite working so well here and why on earth didn't you do it earlier and leave such an ugly ring of fire on the out of fucus flower?

Asher

 

[nicolas claris]

We always say "Convert to sRGB not assign"! Why is it the opposite working so well here and why on earth didn't you do it earlier and leave such an ugly ring of fire on the out of fucus flower?

Asher

Bonjour mon ami américain, I would prefer Andrew (Rodney) to answer your question as I don't have the answer…

Why didn't I do this 1st?, simply because it was much less obvious on the Powerbook screen than on the Nec office's monitor… the real importance to have a very good calibrated monitor!