Yes, we are all different people. If I am teaching a class were we are taking pictures I will show what I would do and then say but yours should be something different. I do not remember ever saying "never do this" There are times when an OOF foreground is needed but in general those times are rare. Dark and light subjects can be tricky. I use exposure compensation for almost ever shot I take as I like unusual light. I like looking into the sun not having the sun at my back for example.

Since I started this thread, I would like to ask that everyone who participates be willing to accept (constructive) criticism. If not, please refrain from criticizing others. Thank you.

gasrocks said:

gasrocks said:Nope. It is the way I want it to be. Is your monitor calibrated? Mine is. I do not take pix that are exposed wrong. Sorry if I sound harsh. Not meant that way. All the pix I post here, all I show my students or visitors or send to editors are straight out of the camera, no editing. I do not own a copy of Photoshop. I am a photographer. I consider post processing graphic arts. Not my thing. This is meant to inspire you. It is actually possible to get great results without processing. Should be your goal. I would rather be out taking pix than sitting in front of my computer. I have yet to meet a student who was that good at post processing anyways. Again, meant to inspire you !

Hello Gene. When I came home from work, checking the forum I found that you had become upset with my suggestion to brighten the above image a bit. My opinion is still the same. I like the image and I would prefer it a little brighter. Yes, I have a hardware calibrated monitor, so I know what I see. Rest assured that I care about you and your photos, just the same as I care about everyone here.

As I didn't immediately know how to respond, I went out into the greenhouse, fed and watered my plants as they appreciate my care. It helps them grow and I will also become more relaxed and I can organize my thoughts better.

I appreciate that you have your own personal view on how bright you want your image to be. You can list all the reasons in the world for you being correct and if I were interested in doing so, I could do the same. However, the image critique that I want to see here, and what I think and hope that most people like to see, is not about that, it is not about prestige. It is not about ego.

Image critique is not one sided either, there are two participants, and there are two persons that needs to show care, to not hurt the others feelings.

For the one receiving image critique, it is about listening to others opinion, to humbly value their help, and to appreciate that they have taken the time to analyze your picture, having the guts to stick out their neck to help, instead of taking the easy way, saying: "Great shot!"

For me it is more helpful to say: "Yes, it is a great shot, but have you thought about this? I think that if you did this or that, your image would be even better." It is also a more loving approach, because while it can be nice to hear "great shot", those words can also quickly become very hollow and you will learn nothing from it.

For the one giving image critique it is about seeing the person behind the picture and understanding that no matter how gentle your words are, he or she might be upset and take it personal. But again, it takes two to make good image critique.

Some of the best photographers I have had the pleasure of meeting on various image critique forums have also been some of the humblest. They were willing to listen to every ones opinion about their photographs, even if they were new to photography. I would like to be like them.

Sometimes it helps me to go water my plants for a while, and I come back and I feel more like them.

gasrocks said: I do not remember ever saying "never do this"

from this very thread :

gasrocks said:Never focus on the tip of the nose.

where else would I try to focus to get a shot of pig nose? It is the way I want it to be.

Baja_Costero said:I use my touch screen to select a focal point and let the camera do the rest. It usually turns out pretty good. I agree it can be helpful to shift the focus around in a given shot, then see how the product turns out differently. It's really easy to delete the extra pictures.

I have greatly enjoyed your cat and bird pics, among others, Gene.

Another photo here where I was going for a certain effect, namely the flowers standing out like beacons above a slightly hazy stem. So I pulled the focus all the way forward. It's like a head shot with the focus on the tip of the nose, or something like that. The plant is kinda blobular to start with, so I think the effect worked.

It worked
How cool to have a touch screen to select the focal point!
I'm curious, what are you using Baja?
It'd be perfect if you had it on some kinda pedestal that we couldn't see, without that other-guy's branch, and fading to darker around the pot...with either straight lines or no apparent lines in the distance. One of the great advantages of pot culture is that you can do a lot to set up your shots, if you want to experiment with that as well

I have a relatively new entry level Canon DSLR (EOS Rebel T7i)... the touch screen focusing can be found on modern cell phone cameras and the newer point and shoot cameras. The version on my camera is pretty good, though sometimes it focuses on things in front of or behind what I was trying to select. So usually I focus on a few different things when I take a shot where focus may be an issue, so that one of them will be right.

There is some kind of image recognition tied in with the focus, so the camera recognizes "things" in the field, and highlights them with a box of the appropriate size after I select an area for focus. That does help for confirmation. It did pretty well with this shot, taken with a longer lens than I normally use for patio shots, where the flower of interest stood out as a "thing" in the field that it could aim at. Presumably because of the color and the contrast in relation to an otherwise even background.



I hear you about the isolation issue, which William brought up earlier in relation to a different image. I tend to take pictures of my plants in situ on the patio, and since there's a fair number of other plants out there, the bystanders end up in pictures. A "perfect" shot would have the plant on some sort of (figurative or literal) pedestal without other distracting objects in the field, but I rarely do that, because the photography is almost like a journal for me, rather than a quest for exquisite perfection. I like to know where a plant was growing when I take flower pictures or whatever, because the location may have something to do with the plant's behavior. I hope that makes sense.

Finally, a detail regarding the Canon cameras which I had to learn the hard way. Since we're talking gear. The sensor on my camera is sensitive and the color comes out great (presumably reflecting the processor as well) but the light often needs adjustment afterwards, depending on the illumination when the exposure was taken. From what I understand this is a Canon thing. I use Lightroom for processing and it corrects two types of defects: loss of contrast in really bright areas, and loss of clarity in the shadows. It "spreads out" the intensity on the high and low ends (imagining a histogram here).

I prefer a neutral (accurate) output so I'm not enhancing the color or tweaking some fantastical mirage, just correcting for the camera's weak points and rendering an image closer to what I perceived with human optics. As judged by the before-and-after images above, I think the processing makes a big difference when lighting was not ideal to start with.

evermorelawnless said:

Asa, I prefer the first photo as well. Pet photography is not my strong side, but I feel this is a fun idea and I think the out of focus leaves works good for this slightly mysterious composition. A cat peeking out from underneath the leaves seems natural to me. We could think about how it would look if the leaves across the cat, wasn't there, but actually if anything I think I'd prefer even more leaves, it would be a natural frame if the leaves would go all the way over to the right side.

Dirt - I still do not remember saying never do this. Link please. And, of course if you want a shot of a nose, focus on it. Duh. I think the subject was portraits.

William, thanks for your thoughts. In addition to aiding the composition (in the first pic), they also seem to draw attention away from the blown out color just under them on his back. Like a quiet apology or distraction or something.

Also, that wasn't the pic I intended to post. I think I had another that had less mess on the right side and that made the image seem more settled. But I'd meant to illustrate a point about composition, so I think it worked as I'd hoped.

In another, related note, that cat and his brother seem to be exceptionally photogenic. His brother is orange so he's lots easier to shoot. But it's hard to take a bad pic of him (assuming focus). Of our two dogs, one looks good in nearly every shot while the other I feel like I have to get lucky to have her looking good. I have a neice that I cannot take a bad shot of, and my people photography skills are really lacking.

Same holds true, for me at least, with plants. I don't think I've ever taken a good pic of a johnny-jump-up violet or one particular bulb whose name I cannot remember. But give me a VIshnu iris and I'll nail it every time (that I can manage focus). Kind of a sidetrack, but I think there's something to photogenic-ness. At least with the way I shoot.

Oh, I think an arc of leaves would have made for a better photo, too. More interesting and better-composed. But...and I just found another soapbox... Much like Baja, I like to shoot most of our flowers in situ - natural, etc., (was a while I wouldn't even clear away dead stuff for that dumb reason, but I'm mostly over that now) - and sometimes you end up with unwanted stuff in your shot - or not enough stuff that you'd like. So it really, for me, becomes a game about making what I can with what I have to work with. Oh, and the cat isn't very pose-able, either. Kinda like looking in the fridge, seeing what you have, and figuring out how to make something acceptable to eat. Fun in its own way. (And that makes backgrounds especially difficult sometimes, too.)

I'm still fighting with figuring out where to focus on the flower in each shot. Sometimes I thrill myself with a particular result, but I'm still missing at least as much as I'm hitting. This year, I'm really trying to work on getting more of the flower in focus. Heretofore, I've erred on the side of shallow depth and good bokeh, etc. A balance I've not yet mastered.

Baja, I'm relatively new to the whole photography thing--only started taking photos after I joined this site, with a borrowed camera. After a while, I got my own...and it's become a fun, yet challenging, hobby.
At first it was just cool to have pics of my plants and gardens--reference pics, I call them, akin to your journal. I still take plenty of those, for the record :smily:
I'm kind of 'arty' though, so I think I see beautiful things and I keep trying to capture them in photos. That's where the quest to improve my photography skills keeps coming in because it's not that easy--apparently I have selective vision and the camera doesn't
Anyway--controlling variables, when William introduced me to that idea a few years ago, eventually revolutionized my approach whenever I am deliberately trying (and still failing, repeatedly, I might add) to take 'perfect' photos. Like, wow, yes I can actually orchestrate some of this when I want/need to. I don't have movable plants, but I can move the wheel barrow out of the way, for example.
This attempt not approximating perfection

was taken in exceptionally harsh, blasty late afternoon light with the help of an umbrella to diffuse it. I couldn't move the boulder behind the iris so I went with shallow DOF, but, I should have removed the fallen cherry blossoms back there. Oh well. Still falls in the good-enough-for-my-immediate-purposes category and way better than it would have been without the umbrella

gasrocks said:Dirt - I still do not remember saying never do this. Link please. And, of course if you want a shot of a nose, focus on it. Duh. I think the subject was portraits.

whatever Gene, here ya go https://garden.org/thread/view...
Doesn't matter to me whether you remember or not, and the subject was a plant 'portrait'.
Also, yes, duh--fill in the blank, if I want a shot of _______, I'll attempt to focus on it.

Dirt, you have a good eye and your pictures are always engaging (worth a second look), for what my rank amateur opinion is worth. You and William have turned me on to the delicate beauty of irises, which are not the kind of plant I would spend 5 seconds on otherwise. I have much to learn from both of you.

As for the "art" of photography (waxing sentimental again here) I feel like nature is the true artist, and I am just a witness. To the extent I can represent what I see with my own eyes, I feel I have accomplished the main objective, which is more documentation than creation per se. Maybe my perspective on that will change as my skills improve.

Focus was never something I paid much attention to before with my point and shoot, beyond a binary true or false sense. When I got my first "real" camera I discovered the subtlety of depth of field, as a given subject could simultaneously be in and out of focus, depending on the geometry.

Thanks Baja!
I am really looking forward to seeing your photos as you experiment
You have a ton of nature's art to work with!

Dirt, your image of 'Wee Harry' is excellent. I really like the composition, and the harsh light was tamed perfectly, as it looks pleasingly soft now. You already noted the out of focus cherry blossom in the background, which shows that you have both an objective mind and a good photographic eye.

Thank you William--work in progress every once in a while, I do

Baja, there are some 'different' irises out there that might do really well for you...in little pots, on the balcony...just sayin'

I really like the use of focus in these two recent database pics...



In each case there's a bunch of delicate flowers in perfect focus, with others gradually fading off at a relatively close distance behind them, surrounded by a lawn of leaves in and out of focus. It gives the feeling of being surrounded by plants, an actual garden and not a plant on a pedestal.

I am not sure the subject here is focus. DOF, yes.

I am seeing some plants in focus and other plants not in focus. To me the magic comes from where the focus was placed relative to the field around it. You can call it whatever name you want, of course.

Focus and DOF are 2 different things. Yes, correct focus makes it better but DOF makes it 3D.

Thank you for the explanation. I am fully aware of the distinction, Gene. Depth of field is defined based on focus (or lack thereof). Does this point of yours somehow relate to the images that I brought up?