Author Topic: Critique: Macro of flower about to bloom (Read 3863 times)

SME · « **on:** November 07, 2012, 22:51 »

I believe I could cut a little bit of space off the right side, but other than that I would appreciate any detailed critique on if this is acceptable stock content, and if not other than the composition what technically needs to be improved.

Thanks.

tab62 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 07, 2012, 23:33 »

looks like you use 1.4 or 1.8 on DOF. I would prefer 2.8 to 4.0 myself. The blow out is too fast...

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #2 on:** November 07, 2012, 23:46 »

I don't think this will get accepted anywhere. The composition is the big barrier - way too much leaf and not enough of the subject - but also lighting and the choice of subject. A flower shot has to be more than OK to be accepted as it's such an oversupplied subject. Take a look at what's on the sites already to see what you're competing with.

SME · « **Reply #3 on:** November 07, 2012, 23:52 »

tab62: Thanks! So what you mean is you'd rather see more of the flower in focus and not just the tip?

jsnover: Can you explain what you mean by too much leaf and not enough flower? Is it because the flower is too small, or as tab62 mentioned out of focus?

Or should there just be less copy space and be more focused on the flower itself?

Can you expand on the lighting critique? I received a lighting critique elsewhere as well and am totally unclear on what needs to be improved with it.

Thanks.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #4 on:** November 08, 2012, 01:11 »

The overall space is largely filled with not very attractive foliage. It's too dark to be usable as copy space. The bud as the subject should occupy more of the frame as it's the only thing of interest. Get in tighter on the bud, or find a group of buds instead of just one. As far as the focus, for the shot to be usable for a designer, you probably need to have something pretty be in really sharp focus and the remainder be a lovely blur for copy space. Given the angle at which you shot the bud, there really isn't enough of anything in focus.

On the lighting, the background is underexposed and an unattractive bluish color. A reflector (or flash) would have helped a lot. Take a look at this (click to see a larger version) showing how the colors change if you reflect light back into the shadows of a scene:

SME · « **Reply #5 on:** November 08, 2012, 01:18 »

Ah, I think I understand.

So you would want the foliage to be a relevant part of the image, or more relevant than it is right now. See, the way I saw it is that the contrast makes the flower stick out even more.

But I guess you can have the contrast but bring out the colors in the background more so that there's more information for the eyes to process.

And yeah, I see how if you reflect light into the shadows you just get more details for the eyes to catch.

Starting to understand - fill your image with visual information - anything underexposed or too dark is lost, anything too bright or overexposed is lost, so the trick is to have focus points and shadows without comparisons that are too harsh (most of the time) so that the viewer gets all the information in the picture.

yes?

JPSDK · « **Reply #6 on:** November 08, 2012, 02:38 »

There are several problems:
1.. As said, the frame is filled with irellevance. Every element in the frame must support the main subject that should occupy at least 1/3 of the frame.
2.. It is not sharp
3.. DOF is far too shallow.

So move closer use a tripod a 8-16, s at least 125 iso 100.

Then still after doing that, it has LCV.
A timelapse would be something else.
BTW, when I do macro i work in the s 5 - 16 area, never beyond, because of diffraction. Preferable 8 outside. In the studio 16.

SME · « **Reply #7 on:** November 08, 2012, 02:48 »

Thank you for the critique.

I see that even though the portion in focus is focused, it is indeed not as crisp as I want it, and yes stopping down a few notches would give it a crisper look.

With the DOF being too shallow I figure we want to see the whole flower because it is the main object of the scene.

Regarding #1, if the leaves in the background had some reflected light into them giving them more color and life, the flower took up a slightly large portion of the frame, and the entire flower was in focus, aside from the LCV, would it be closer to a technically acceptable photo for stock?

JPSDK · « **Reply #8 on:** November 08, 2012, 04:12 »

IF and IF. It all depends on the appeararance and especially on the background. The background must support the subject, or not be there.
See, here.... the blurred background supports the subject:

And here there is no background:

SME · « **Reply #9 on:** November 08, 2012, 04:29 »

Regarding that first image, if it was just snow in the background, would it still be supportive (ie, the contrast or lone flower etc)?

JPSDK · « **Reply #10 on:** November 08, 2012, 05:05 »

Yes, you are right, or if the flowers were a bit less prominent. The background is quite, striking, and it shouldnt be. it only half works because it is the same flowers.

SME · « **Reply #11 on:** November 08, 2012, 05:17 »

So you are saying that a more contrasting background would be better than having the same flowers in the background?

JPSDK · « **Reply #12 on:** November 08, 2012, 05:45 »

No, I say that "It is the background that sells the picture"
meaning anybody can or should be able to take a sharp photo of something, but it is an art, to create a background that supports the image.

With the crocus, the blurred flowers in the background support the flowers in the foreground, since they are the same, and such the main subject just repeats itselv and produces no distractions. However, they could be less prominent and still do the job.

SME · « **Reply #13 on:** November 08, 2012, 08:35 »

Ah, okay. So not distracting, but also supportive.

If it is not distracting and not supportive, then it is unnecessary, right?

You have been very helpful!

JPSDK · « **Reply #14 on:** November 08, 2012, 09:13 »

you have 3800 x 2400 pixels.
You have a title saying Flower.
Then fill up the picture with flower.
1/3 is the main subject, the rest of the pixels are supportive.
same with cannons and cars.
Same rule.
Use your background to support your main subject.

it is the background that sells the picture.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Critique: Macro of flower about to bloom (Read 3863 times)

SME

tab62

Jo Ann Snover

SME

Jo Ann Snover

SME

JPSDK

SME

JPSDK

SME

JPSDK

SME

JPSDK

SME

JPSDK

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors