Congrats to you both on your new equipment

Steve, I don't like the focus there either.
I'd like to see what it would look like with the same depth but a different placement of focus i.e. on the anthers--might be cool--but I'd probably go with higher f myself...

Re Photoshop--
When the word is used to describe the dramatic alteration of a photo such that it's obviously not 'real', and converted into a verb as in "he photoshopped that image" to mean the falsification of said image regardless of the editing program used to do it, I can understand the objections to "Photoshop". Likewise, when the word is used to cover a multitude of photo-editing sins like over saturating, sharpening, contrasting, colorshifting, artifacting, etc., regardless of the program used, as if Photoshop is the only editing program that people can wreck a photo with, I can agree that photoshopping aka bad editing is undesirable.

I don't have Photoshop. I wish I did; and I wish I knew how to use it. Aside from the outlandish edits or enhancements, I really see it as a superb and versatile tool to produce a fine image into an even finer image by someone who did a good job when it is done well I can usually tell when an image has been well edited and it doesn't bother me in the least, except the envy/jealousy part. I admire the skill

Steve, perhaps just a little tight at the top, otherwise I think the framing works very well here
I really like your own suggestion about using a tripod and stopping down more.
My thoughts is that it could be fun to play around a bit with the light the next time. The flower in the middle has a shaded center and having a little more light there would help to attract the viewers attention .

Peggy, my preference would have been to move the out of focus orange object in the background out of the way prior to shooting, otherwise a very nice image
The centered composition works well here and the view from below is intresting. Excellent light, soft, but still directional enough to make it interesting

Peggy, I like the out of focus orange (and purple) thing in the background and the color echo it gives with the sepals--if there had been another one for balance I'd think it was perfect
(but I liked the red blob fighting with my daffy too darn backgrounds, why do they have to be so in the picture?)

PeggyC said: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.

It was I who mentioned photoshop earlier - and being very bad at it (and it was more at digital-darkrooming rather than photoshop proper).

I completely agree with your statement, though. If it wanders from a photo to something more at graphic arts, it loses its appeal to me.

All that said, post processing (or, to reuse the verb, photoshopping) occurs in the camera, too. The settings like white balance, light metering, color, etc., (and there are many, many others depending on the camera) take the raw (RAW) data from the sensor and process it into a .jpg (for most avocational photographers). The camera is making the decisions for us amateurs that the more skillful make in photoshop (or similar programs) when they're working with the RAW files.

So...there's a place for post-processing - be it in the camera or on the computer screen. But it gets done one way or another - and some ways (and some post-processors (automatic or by the skilled photographer)) return much better results than others. And that's my lament. I'd like to take the post-processing duties from the camera, primarily, to my (eventual) digital darkroom abilities and eye.

As post processing is mentioned, I though I'd post an actual example of it for discussion.
I haven't got a strong opinion about what kind of post processing is right or wrong, it depends on the context for me and I'd like to leave it to the viewer to decide whenever possible or practical, not the photographer. For a plant data base such as ATP's I think it would be inappropriate with a highly processed image. On the other hand for a nice print for your wall it can be very beneficial as it's more about decoration than natural history.

For instance I had no problem posting the below image as an example of a red squirrel in the bulbs forum without going into details (as mentioning this would complicate things too much and would be really of topic as the discussion is about bulbs, not wildlife) but for this thread or a wildlife thread I would want to leave full details. Things will get more complicated for the professional photographer, as even if he gives full details, he has none or little control of what info ends up in print or on a web site. Sometimes this can lead to confusion.



Two focus stacked images, Nikon D300 + 300mm f2.8vr + 1.7tc, tripod, f/4.8, 1/80, Iso 320 and iso 360 respectively for the two different RAW images.

Processed image of course on the left, one of the RAW images on the right.
The reason I focus stacked this, isn't so obvious at web size as the red squirrel appears rather sharp throughout, but at original size the difference is significant.
While shooting wide open I was still not able to get the background as smooth as I wanted. So I decided to clone/tone down a big branch in the background and make it just generally a little smoother, but I still wanted to keep the background sort of representative for the environment. I also adjusted colors, sharpened and so on.

A more advanced wildlife photographer than me would probably use a setup with a beautiful perch and a nice distant background to get the images she or he wanted. Same as I'd prefer to do with a floral or macro image. Usually backgrounds in images don't just happen to be there, they are planned in advance. So often instead of changing the image, one is sort of making an outdoor studio and changing nature instead or one of course can photograph in a very good natural spot with a distant background.

So open to discussion, is the post processing too much here? Unnecessary? What do you think?

Wow!

Thank you William
This is a perfect example of what I mean when I say that I admire the skill and am all kinds of jealous and envious

I think your post-processed squirrel is absolutely magnificent and if I were, say, for example, looking to purchase a squirrel pic to hang on my wall, which I'm not, but if I were, I would definitely prefer the processed pic hands-down over the the other!

Is it too much? No
Unnecessary? ha-ha, that's a tricky question...yes and no and I will settle on maybe. Depends on the purpose I guess...create a finished product that is the best possible? processing is necessary
Still though, the originals are fantastic and I'd be so proud of myself if I took them, minor imperfections and all! In that sense the manipulations are unnecessary...the RAW squirrel is still a great picture. I appreciate the realness of the background.
And, this is an important point--it depends on the skill level...in my case, coming from my incapable-editing perspective, because I cannot achieve processing results like that, attempting to do so is not only unnecessary but contraindicated as well i.e. to create a finished product that is the best possible for someone like me, yes, it is unnecessary.

Okay, I'll play. I am the newly appointed photographer for the St. Louis American Orchid Society Judging Center.

Since we are all volunteers, we are limited to what we can afford and our abilities. The parameters are not really artistic rather to get the photos as close as possible in focus and in good color.

With that being said, I have problems with the larger plants. I think it is my lens size and lighting. I just upgraded to a much better camera (Nikon D5200), but I might still need a different lens. Maybe a better wide-angle?

Here is one with the old camera. Sony A100 taken inside a vestibule with a white diffuser panel underneath. It was late afternoon. I do these on auto focus, because I don't trust my near-sighted eyes anymore. ISO800 26mm f22 1/4 on a Bogen heavy tripod. I took the RAW and photoshopped the lint off of the background.

That same camera (Sony A100) took this photo on an early morning cloudy day. ISO800 70mm f20 1/40 white diffuser panel underneath on heavy Bogen tripod. Super windy but got a break. Photoshopped the lint off the background.

I think those are beautiful!
I've found it hard to get my camera to focus on tiny buds in the foreground as opposed to whatever is in the background.

Congratulations on your new appointment Melissa!

I am really quite ignorant about photographic equipment and lenses and such and photography in general so cannot really advise as to what would be the perfect lens for your task, however...

in the thread 'Camera recommendations?' you said

shadytrake said: I found a nice deal on eBay for a Nikon D5200 that had less than 5 shutter clicks. Standard kit lens Nikkor 18-55mm. Plus it had a 32GB SD card, wireless remote, wireless adapter, extra battery, and the Nikon D5200 field manual. $450 and included a case as well.

I have looked into the macro lenses for the Nikon and there are many reviews. Not sure yet what I will get. I want to see what the limits are on the 18-55mm lens. I hope that I have made a good choice. It should arrive on Wednesday.

I think you got a heck of a steal there!
see what you can do with your new equipment before you add to it...

Also, just as an observation--you do have the entire orchid in the frame there in that first one, confirming that you had a wide enough angle lens for that shot anyway, but the focus looks to me like it is more toward the back of the plant, which at f22 I imagine also gave you a fairly identifiable background or at least the lint detail
This is not necessarily a problem with the lens and lighting.
Presumably, it would be nice to have more of the blooms in focus and less of the background, right?
When I was using a variable focal point lens and auto-focus, one thing I did to help with that was to set the thing to a single point of focus, zoom in and focus on the front most flower, then keeping that focal plane (with the button half-pressed), back out again to include the entire plant. In the event that the flowers or buds or whatever, were too small or not contrasty enough for the auto focus thingy to find them well enough, I would then focus at that same plane--the front of the plant--but on something bigger, even the base of the plant, and then move the frame back up to include the thing I wanted that auto-focus couldn't find.
I don't know if that helps much, or if I just sound like an idiot (I'm used to the idiot thing but I hope it helps)
Anyway, I found that by ensuring focus on the front of the subject, with higher 'fs' like that, it gave better results.

Hi, Melissa!
The images appear well framed and the black background seems appropriate .

Your light looks okay to me, but the first image however appears quite a bit overexposed. I believe this has to do with the black background. When it fills such a large portion of the frame as in the first image it easily fools the cameras metering as it expects something more neutral. In the second image this is probably okay because the bloom fills larger part of the frame. Even with the new camera it could be a good idea to check the histogram after taking an image and dial in some exposure compensation if needed .

Dirt posting what lens you bought is actaully very helpful as I wondered what you were using and what the problem was. As this is a kit lens I now assume this is a concern about image quality? The kit lens should be reasonable, but At f/22 diffraction makes all images a bit soft, regardless of lens. If you combine diffraction with higher ISO the result wont be as good as it could be. For better image quality, shoot at lower ISO if possible and open up your lens a bit when you can.

My suggestion would be to take a few images at f/22 if you feel you need it for depth of field, but to also take a few images at f/16 or lower. If you feel that this gives you too little depth of field with the auto focus, you could try to adjust the focus manually, moving focus slowly a bit back and forth. This sort of focus bracketing is sometimes very useful. No need to look at the results at shooting time, these are just backup images, but they are very good to take. Later at home you can look at the result on your computer monitor and it will be much easier for you to see which one is best.

Thanks dirt and William! These photos were with the old camera the A100 which has the kit lens 18-70mm AF. I usually use auto so it is adjusting the ISO, lens, and shutter based on my selection of f-stop. I always have trouble with the AF on the large plants and I forgot about the f/22 diffraction.

With the new Nikon I will have some higher quality, but the black background will still be a challenge. I think some diffused lighting may be in order to help reduce any contrast issues. That should help the ISO and shutter speed. With my A100 the long shutter speeds caused digital noise even with the tripod.

I just couldn't trust manual focus after I tripped and the A100 got damaged, because the display was different than the view finder.

The new Nikon will have the 18-55mm Nikkor lens. I should probably practice my manual focus bracketing. I can't wait for it to arrive.

This is one I took with the A100 at ISO 800 at 60mm f22 2sec. It was inside with a single overhead florescent (in a classroom). OMG did it ever present a challenge. I had no extra light and just a single white panel diffuser. I photoshopped to de-noise it. I was so glad it turned out decent, because once the plants go back to their owners we don't get a second chance.

I really think it's a focus problem. The rest is just a distraction. (Apart from the noise introduced by shooting at ISO 800).

Here's some thing I just shot replicating your settings - it's unretouched and I used auto focus on Santa. The plant in the pot is 36" tall (which is what I guessed the height of yours to be - so that I could be roughly the same distance from the subject.

Exposure time: 4 seconds (you apparently had a lot better light than I to be able to shoot at 1/4?)
ISO 800
Focal Lenghth: 28mm (vs your 26...hard to nail it on a zoom)
AP
f/22

I also used a cheap, flimsy Suncoast tripod and the 12 second timer. So there's gonna be a little blur from that.


Also, cannot figure out how to get it to load here properly. Guess you'll have to turn your head 90 degrees.

Interesting!
Well, I have just read a ton trying to comprehend diffraction and the related darn physics of the thing and many rabbitholes and I have a ton more to go

I do recall experimenting with smaller apertures and the 'softness' and extended depth of my images with the borrowed camera/lenses...I should really do some tests now that I have my very own camera and go-to-lens for me, though, the sweeter and funner spots have definitely been hand-held with shorter exposure times and lower fs so I haven't done it.
I second William's suggestion to try some at f/16 and lower, plus focus bracketing. With your situation needing to photograph these gorgeous orchids before they leave, maybe a portable light source would be a really handy addition in your arsenal?

Melissa, what you are saying now is a bit more informational than your original post as I thought this was an eyesight problem only. It sounds like your mirror box may have become misaligned in the fall and obviously it will be almost impossible to focus if you can't see what you are doing. Not to familiar with the Sony but the mirror is also usually involved in phase-detect autofocus so the fall could also cause some issues with that .

As I think your old camera lacked live-view my revised advise for you would be to try live-view on your new camera for tripod work and see how you get along with that. You will be able to magnify things in live view to more easily judge focus placement, regardless if you use auto focus or manual focus .

Please also consider to skip auto ISO on your new camera when working from a tripod and shooting still subjects. It will only hurt your image quality as in low light it will always push your ISO up to the maximum allowed settings even though that usually isn't necessary Use the base ISO of your camera instead.

Nice post, William.

Just want to echo the idea of using live view. On the Pentax K-x that's my go-to (it's an older, 12mp thing) I can magnify the live view up to 10x and really get a clear look at the focus. Although I normally focus manually when using live view. On the K-3 (the one that dirt uses), the live view is even more advanced; not only can it magnify, but it also shows exactly what part is in focus (by adding a little bit of white to the focus parts - we call those the "jucies" - and place the jucies on the part of the shot that will be in the most focus).

The other thing that's important for shooting long exposures (from a tripod, I hope) is not moving the camera when you click the button. I get the best results using a 6 dollar, generic remote from Amazon (I think they have something similar for Nikon) - but I've also done okay using the 2 or 12 second timer on the camera. Tho if you're shooting with a rail, even the slightest bump when you depress the shutter button can mess things up.

You are spot on Asa, to always use a remote release or self timer on tripod is really good advice .

My Nikon D300 has a serious design flaw in live view as it slams the mirror down before taking the image. So one needs to exit live view and use the mirror lock up to get a really sharp image . I do think this has been improved in later models, probably even the entry models to some extent, but I'm not up to date with newer cameras. In addition on the D300 when you magnify in live view you are actually only magnifying the small preview image, which while useful, isn't as good as it could have been if one would have been able to zoom in on the actual pixels . So for these reasons I don't use live view as much as I would have. But such is life and things move on and improve. Seems like the newer Pentax has some nice functions to assist focus .

the juicies! they are really cool--they kind of glow and dance around a bit
It occurs to me that I should really make more of an effort to learn about and use more of my camera more often ... dirt, pondering the forces involved

Woot! Got the new gear today. Just learning the camera, but it is REALLY user friendly and very light compared to my A100. I'm happy so far. Will post a photo once I get the hang of it.