William said:Dirt, a reflector doesn't need to be shiny. Something as simple as a white piece of paper is all that is needed. If placed below the subject it would remove some of the dark shadows, giving more details in the darks, essentially giving the impression of softer light. The risk of course is that if too much light is reflected one would end up with a very flat uninteresting light instead, making things worse, instead of better. This can happen real easy... Here I think only very little reflected light would be needed as the light is already pretty good .

Thanks! that's exactly where my imagination was going...to the risk end of things.
Of course, even a piece of paper below the subject is conjuring all sorts of contortions in my mind's eye--as far as how to get it there and still take the picture not to mention the very low probability of me ever seeing the need to fetch a piece of paper for such a purpose.

I suppose with lots of experience a person eventually learns to recognize when to subtly manipulate the already pretty good lighting.
Personally, I am still foolishly bewildered by my results when I look at photos I have taken in various lighting conditions. But, I am starting to get to the point where I can recognize hopelessly bad light and I no longer punish myself as much by taking so many bad photos at those times

Some seriously good critique already and I'm really happy I posted this one . Are you sure you're not all professional photographers???

Shifting the frame a touch down would have been so great.

While the background here is 100% organic and natural and reflected the greyness of everything at this time of year, selecting a different one would have helped tremendously. In our own garden this is something we often can do. It doesn't have to be paper backgrounds(I have never used them, only thought about using them), but instead of shooting the subject where it stands, we have the choice to cut it (or move it, if in a pot) and stage it somewhere else. Actually we could even dig it up and replant it where it would be easier to photograph . If I could have gotten a pink sunset as a backdrop, this would visually have been a much more efficient and strong image.

Also getting that tip in focus would certainly have enhanced the looks.

Awesome, guys

Dirt, for holding reflectors and to steady plants for long exposures or in windy situations I recommend using some sort of flexible arm: http://www.tripodhead.com/prod... Works well, but is very overpriced, cheaper solutions do exist. Having a personal slave assistant would be excellent solution, otherwise the flexible arm will do

well, I didn't make a suggestion about changing the background color; my suggestion was to crop off a bit of the grey at the top so the leaf would fill the frame. I think that's similar to the suggestion of 'shifting the frame down'?

Indeed Catmint, those are very, very similar suggestion and I really value them both. They are so similar that I in fact sort of clumped them together.

thanks, William
'shifting the frame down' is a more elegant way to say it...
so now I have learned a new phrase/term!

Sorry, I fixed it--Ann's suggestion--and a pink sunset would have been cool!

Ann, if I tried to shoot a bird thru my windows you wouldn't even be able to tell that it was a bird

Okay here's a daffy (thalia)

f/3.5; 1/8000; 90mm; ISO 200; hand-held, bit windy--cropped square for the 'thumbnail'
I think it's cool, but apparently it isn't--so, tell me

Dirt, I like the change in the background color on that photo!

that is a very pretty daffodil!

For some reason (maybe it is my cataracts?), I want the pretty daffs to stand out more against the background--like their color is so soft and delicate, and then there's this red in the background, and my eye is drawn to the red, and I want the daffs to look brighter so I can better admire the delicate colors

And I like it exactly as it is Dirt. I appreciate the subtlety of it. Most photos of daffs that I see are in really bright light if not actually full on sun & that can be great BUT the way you've portrayed yours is just as great in a different way. It conveys the softness & delicacy.

William said:Ann, you gave some good and well thought out critique there .

I'd imagine having having no skin would make everything feel more painful, but I could be wrong about that I do like my own skin very much and wouldn't want to be without it

I think shooting through a window has reduced the image sharpness a bit so that could be what you are seeing.

I really like that you have plenty of space in front of the bird. My only suggestion would be for a lower shooting angel. You will create more intimate images that way as you will make the viewer feel more connected to the subject. Ideally if the bird is on the ground, then you should be on the ground. Otherwise a nice image!!!

Thank you William. I don't know why it never occurred to me to get down on a level with the bird but it makes perfect sense. I will have to do some stalking.
I often shoot through that window as I am stuck in the kitchen so much. I will have to accept the times I am forced to shoot through the window but with this new camera I do plan on doing some stalking as the zoom on it will allow me to be further away so as not to frighten them off. But I will crawl on my belly like a reptile.

I have been trying to remember what that was in the background--I was trying to make it less obnoxious--but fair assessment Robin--that red blobby thing really competes for attention!

(Ann, you go girl!)

Very interesting.
I am learning a lot.
Another question about file sizes-when I look at the computer file info, for this picture it says 13.2MB 6016 x 4016. When you say 1000 pixels, is it one of these numbers?

Ann- I have a very similar camera Fuji Finepix HS 50 EXR, which is basically your camera in a prior version from about 3 years ago. I had so much fun with it (love that superzoom!) that this spring I spent a lot of $$$ and got a fancier bigger camera and a macro lens. But guess what-I am keeping the Fuji. It is a great camera, can be used as a point and shoot or fully manual, once you want to play around. I took it to a Police Academy graduation ceremony. There were some people there with some very fancy full frame cameras, but my little superzoom got better close ups from across a big auditorium, and those guys had enormous camera bags but no super telephoto. They would have had to use a humongous bird watching telephoto with a tripod. So now I have two cameras.

I am learning a good deal already too. I am so glad Asa started this thread.

Mary, Oh that's cool about your Fuji! I can't wait to fully explore it's capabilities and learn all the things it can do. It's actually my Christmas present so I have to wait till then to be able to have free rein with it.

Pistil said:
Another question about file sizes-when I look at the computer file info, for this picture it says 13.2MB 6016 x 4016. When you say 1000 pixels, is it one of these numbers?

The first number is the width (in pixels). The second is the height. For ATP, the maximum width that will be displayed is 1000 pixels. So when you upload a photo, it shrinks it to 1000 pixels wide and adjusts the height proportionally.

The 13.2mb is the file size. How much space it takes on your hard drive - and how much info is in the picture. If you were to drag an ATP photo to your desktop, you'd notice that the file size is significantly smaller. The one I'm looking at right now is 1/2 of a megabyte.

One thing you can do to save yourself some time and frustration on the uploading (as well as saving your bandwidth and Dave's) is to save a copy of the picture at 1000pixels wide. Most photo editors and even some viewers have the option to do it. Just make sure that you don't overwrite the original picture with the one you're trying to shrink. That would be (and has been) tragic.

Dirt, you handled the exposure for the whites very well and the sharpness is perfect

Some thoughts:
I do think a bit softer light would have suited my taste a bit better, but I'm very demanding when it comes to the quality of light!
The right side of the background works great, but the left side tend to compete a bit with your subject.
The out of focus foliage in the foreground could have been moved out of the way prior to shooting so it wouldn't have obscured the second flower.
A vertical presentation with more space below the flower and less space on the sides would have worked very well here.
I really like the inclusion of the bud. For classical floral images having both bud and opened flower in the image is a big plus .

Good stuff!
thank you

Where in the heck was that personal slave assistant with the diffuser and an extra limb when I needed him Like I already confessed, I'm still trying to accept the fact that good light is mandatory :headsmack thingy:
I run around and take a bunch of crappy pictures in crappy light and then I look through them and pick out the 'good' ones--and here is my other big confession--the 'good' ones are where something is in focus so then I crop to that and cheer
No, seriously, it's true.

This thread is so awesome because it's really opening my eyes and making some connections in my brain. It's really different to look at a picture and think about why--why we like it or why something works or it doesn't or why it would be better if...
It is difficult--a stretch for me--seemingly impossible to do on my own, especially with my own pictures, remarkable how possible it is here with other people's pictures and the encouragement.
And it occurs to me how much I'm already learning this way--it is actually much easier for me to understand (and formulate an improvement plan) when the stuff is spelled out like this as opposed to just getting lucky once in a while with something in focus in marginal quality light.

I took a look back at the original of that daffy...I had nothing more on the bottom, dangit. I cut the top and sides off.
There is another of that same cluster from a slightly different angle, higher in the frame, without the red blob, without the foreleaves obscuring...and without the focus plus it's blown out
here's another one from that same day

full sides, top cut off--minus the red blob, but it's got a nice dark leaf in the way and the ubiquitous centered composition

I'll try again next year

dirtdorphins said:--and here is my other big confession--the 'good' ones are where something is in focus so then I crop to that and cheer

I can just see Asa's eyes rolling.....

Great post!
I can see it becoming quite huge.

evermorelawnless said:

The first number is the width (in pixels). The second is the height. For ATP, the maximum width that will be displayed is 1000 pixels. So when you upload a photo, it shrinks it to 1000 pixels wide and adjusts the height proportionally.

The 13.2mb is the file size. How much space it takes on your hard drive - and how much info is in the picture. If you were to drag an ATP photo to your desktop, you'd notice that the file size is significantly smaller. The one I'm looking at right now is 1/2 of a megabyte.

One thing you can do to save yourself some time and frustration on the uploading (as well as saving your bandwidth and Dave's) is to save a copy of the picture at 1000pixels wide. Most photo editors and even some viewers have the option to do it. Just make sure that you don't overwrite the original picture with the one you're trying to shrink. That would be (and has been) tragic.

The other thing to take into account with photos is their resolution, how many dpi (dots per inch) or ppi (pixels per inch) the photo is. Your camera will probably have a setting to take photos with different 'quality' settings - high, medium and low at a minimum (this is usually the resolution). The higher the resolution/ quality the larger the file size but you will be able to blow the photo up to a larger size with less loss of quality. Conversely at a lower setting the file size will be smaller, and you'll fit more photos on your memory card, but when you try to enlarge the photo it will start looking fuzzy quite quickly. Computer monitors use 72 ppi as the default so posting a high res image on the net will cause it to look unexpectedly massive - you are best to display the image at the size you want at 72 dpi. For print quality (like publishing), they usually require a minimum of 300 dpi (not ppi).

Cheers, Troy

Very cool thread. Some outstanding knowledge on this forum. I'd like to offer a pic I took this week of a Hippeastrum (Amaryllis) called Lemon Lime. I was trying out a new lens.




Exif data: Nikon D7100, with a Nikkor 85mm f/1.8, taken at f/2.8, SS 1/50, ISO 160. Shot in RAW and processed in LR Creative Cloud.
This was taken indoors with natural light coming from a bay window on the left of the camera. I provided the black background.
I think the composition is OK. I wanted to fill the frame and I think the background works. I don't like the depth of field because the anthers on the main flower are out of focus. If I were to do this over I think I'd change the aperture to f/11 and either pump up the ISO or put the camera on a tripod and bring down the shutter speed.

Please let me know what you think.

Steve

First day using new Canon PowerShot SX60 HS -- a Cosmos in Not My Garden [ down the road ]

Oh, and someone mentioned the use of Photoshop --- to me, if I can tell it has been through PS, then somebody didn't do a good job.
The best results [ imo ] are those you can not detect.