Critique more Phals

[shadytrake]

Help me pick the best one.

Here is the list in order of appearance.
Phal equestris var. leucaspis
Phal schilleriana
Phal Sogo Gotris

[Val]

Your schilleriana is to die for!
Phal schilleriana has been on my wish list for some time.

[fishmommy]

I like the first pic best, if that's what you're asking

[Ysa]

Phal schilleriana

[jrodpad]

#1!

Lovely.

-J

[tropterrarium]

Nice photography and plants overall. You could notch up your images by using a tripod and composing more carefully. The first image has a distracting oblique line at the bottom of the image (could also be cropped out). In the first of the second group, there is a distracting brown piece in the image. The last series has two with one of the petals being cropped at the top. This could all be avoided by using a tripod, and check the composition very carefully.

Third, edit your images. In the second series, first one has the brown problem, second one has a shadow in the center of the flower, so #3 or 4 would be the one to show. If shot in RAW, #3 would be preferred, as you have more information in the slightly overexposed image (expose to right in RAW-rule). In the last series, only the first one has no cut-off petal (or you could crop much tighter to only show the main flower. Then cropping becomes part of the image and is not an accident).

I like that you play around with lighting. I possibly stay clear of the background debate (pure black, vs structured vs colored, vs. white); this is a matter of personal preference.

I may also have shown the flowers a tad smaller, and put them a bit off center. Consider the second series, so you put the flowers to the right, and the stem of the spike arches in from the left, which will give it more dynamics, looks like exploding firework with con-trail of the rocket. Can be tricky balance so that the image is not weighted down on one side, but worth some experiments.

Keep it up, and thanks for sharing!

[shadytrake]

Hi Trop,

I did use a tripod. The next day I went to the eye doc because I still couldn't get a good sharp focus.

The background is a piece of black formica countertop and it does have a few scratches.

Thanks for your suggestions and comments.

[silken]

Originally Posted by shadytrake

Hi Trop,

I did use a tripod. The next day I went to the eye doc because I still couldn't get a good sharp focus.

The background is a piece of black formica countertop and it does have a few scratches.

Thanks for your suggestions and comments.

The pictures are for the most part nicely focused. But if you are having a problem, it could be the diopter on the camera if there is one. Many cameras have one. It is a wheel near the viewfinder that can be turned to adjust for people's different eyesight problems. So what works for you may not work for someone else. If you have this, try adjusting it until you can see clearly thru the viewfinder. This is assuming that you have more than a small point and shoot camera as they do not usually have viewfinders-just the LCD to look at.

If you are trying to get a good black background, I went to a thrift store and bought the largest black velvet dress I could find and ripped out the seams. The skirt produced a good piece of black velvet that works very well!

[tropterrarium]

Re tripod, I stand corrected! Some times these objectionable background lines are not visible when you compose the image with the lens all open for a bright image. But once the image is taken at the working f-stop, then the out of focus areas also become more defined (and occasionally objectionable). If your camera has it, use the depth of field preview button/function to check for those problems. The image will be darker, but you will be able to get a preview of what the final image may look like. Then examine the image on the camera's screen.

One more handicap could be the viewfinder. Cheaper cameras have a cropped viewfinder (90-95% of actual image), while pro cameras have 98-100% viewfinder, showing the entire image. It may be that you could not have seen the offending base line in #1. But the brown square in #2 was certainly visible. And the cut-off of the last petals would have been even more pronounced.

Re focus problem, also consider the focusing screen. With most AF cameras, they come with a clear screen, which gives a bright image, but is very difficult to focus manually. In some cameras, the focusing screen can be changed (some by user, some only at factory) to a matt screen, and some third party manufacturers make screens with microprism and the semi-circle indicator (don't know what it is properly called in English, in German it is Schnittbildindikator). I have an aftermarket one from Haoda, but there are others from Beatie, and a few more.

I am glad you focus manually. I consider AF in close-ups a complete nuisance, worse than useless, as it never focuses where I want it to. I use MF lenses (Zeisses) anyway.

Re sharp focus, consider also the effect of stopping down heavily, which introduces diffraction. At these magnifications (~1:5 I guess) it should not be terribly prominent, but anyway. In general, a lens is sharpest 2-3 stops down from fully open. After that, you increase diffraction blur along with depth of field.

Objectionable blur is a complex topic including lens design, f-stop set, magnification, film/sensor size, blow up factor of print/on screen, resolution of print/screen, viewing distance, and psychology & personal preference. The usually quoted one is F/32 at infinity focus on 35 mm film printed on 8x10" held at "normal" viewing distance of about 2 feet. With that, two points on the film separated by 1/30 mm are still distinct. That is why most SLR camera lenses just go to f/32, but large format lenses go to f/64, or even f/128. But I digress ...

Other issues with sharpness are microblur. Consider that when the image is out of register by a a single pixel, then the resolution is reduced by half! Hence, a floppy tripod, pushing the shutter by finger instead of by cable release, any wind draft while exposing, could have an effect, with a shutterspeed greater than 1/focal length of lens (in 35 mm full frame equivalent).

Re diopter adjustment, this is done with the camera focused at infinity, looking at a far away object. Then adjust the diopter until you get the easiest, lowest strain, visual experience. Do not adjust the diopter while doing a close focus, that will magnify the problems!

sorry for being rather technical. I hope by knowing where some of the potential pitfalls are, you can analyze your workflow, eliminate some factors, and concentrate on possible culprits.

[shadytrake]

Hi Trop,

Thanks for the detailed comments. I am new to the digital SLR and have forgotten a lot from the film age of SLR.

I have a Sony SLR and it does have a diopter adjustment so I will definitely have to adjust that. I forgot about the cable release. I was using my finger and the exposure time was longer due to a low light situation. I probably jostled the camera even though I was backing away and just barely pushing the button with the tip of my finger.

I was using my cheap tripod and not the heavy Bogen because I was in the greenhouse and the Bogen takes up a lot of room.

I know, details...details...

I sometimes wish I could use my old film Canon T-90. I know all of the settings and getting good photos was just a matter of bracketing 5 to 10 shots. I find with digital that I am taking 20 or more shots just to get one halfway decent one.