Dave,
I don't have much of a critique of the photos themselves - nor of the shoot specifically. But I think in pretty broad terms and so here's an idea that I've been thinking some about lately - and it may get long so bear with me... And none of the blather that follows is meant to be spoken from any authority - nor is it necessarily the right answer...nor even necessarily
a right answer. Just my take on this particular question. And I'll bet if I read this post five years from now, I'd be embarrassed at how puerile it seems then. So here goes...
If I locked 100 people in a room and told them that they could have dinner only after they wrote a high-ish quality poem...and that they could write either a sonnet or free verse (odd, right?), I contend that the quality of the sonnets would be MUCH higher than the quality of the free verse (and I think that sonnet writers would both eat first and feel better about their products, too). That's an artifact of the constraints of the sonnet itself. And I think people work better when they understand the constraints of the project.
So...assuming that you were following the model here from my first post (don't care if you were...this assumption is for the sake of this post - in that everything was on full auto) and from what you reported about the weather (and what we can see of the lighting), we know a few things:
1) It was breezy (i.e. your subjects were prone to move)
2) You have less control than normal of the depth of focus (and bokeh) because it's the camera making those decisions (aperture), not you
3) The depth of focus is going to be necessarily smaller than usual (because the +4 magnifying lens requires that inherently)
4) Because of the time of day with the sun mostly overhead, the light and shadows are going to be pretty pronounced (and it looks sunny out)
5) You're limited to natural light (no flash in the assumptions)
5) What am I forgetting here?
Or, in other words, that's your:
a b a b
c d c d
e f e f
g g
So in that sense, you're limited in what you can photograph successfully.
But what do you have control of?
1) The light (even from that angle of the sun, you can select backlit, sidelit, and directly lit shots - and you can shoot in the shade, too)
2) The depth of focus to some degree (read: how close you frame the subject)
3) The bokeh (see 2 just above)
4) What you choose to photograph
5) From where you choose to photograph it
6) The shot composition (always)
To illustrate what I'm talking about in 2 and 3 (above), I took two shots with a 50mm lens with a +4 adapter at f/7.1 (identical metrics taken from that neat grass shot). The first was shot at maximum focal range (infinity) whereas the second was at the opposite end of the ring (dialed all the way in). Not only what's in frame is important (the amount of the book), but even moreso is the depth of focus (the number of lines that you can easily read). The first shot was 9 5/8" from end-of-lens to book and the second was 5 1/2". So you have a relative TON to play with (close-upwise, DoFwise, bokehwise) even at that magnification - and that's absolutely governed by how far away from the subject you place your lens, pre-auto focus. And the shots are stunningly different (relatively). Note the 1/3 (foreground) 2/3 (background) focus rule in play. This is a good illustration of that, too.
My approach for the shoot would be to shoot mostly at the minimum focusing distance (further sonnet-izing myself and maximizing the ability of the lens
vis a vis the exercise - as well as removing a variable). I'd select targets that were prone to be more static (think plants or parts of plants that were on or near the ground...or near the stalk of the plant) in the wind. I would shoot a decent percentage of the shots using the more oblique light (to account for and even use the shadows/contrast) and also try backlighting a few (even if that meant I was on my back shooting up - you've got 180-360 degrees to work with on most shots). If I shot targets more prone to move, I'd select the harshest light with the hope that the camera would choose to up the shutter speed (all auto, right? gamble there on washouts, but it might be more likely to freeze the subject occasionally). I'd also shoot lots of shots of the same moving target hoping to catch it in focus. Finally, I'd select targets with smallish points of (necessary) focus...or that had elements in a single focal plane (a real limitation of the lens/setup). And if I'd been doing it right, all of this (and more) would have occurred to me
before I took the camera out of the bag. I shoot better shots when I am pre-conscious of the rhyme and meter and length and structure of the shoot before I start clicking.
That said, I would also shoot a number of shots that were just out of sonnet-bounds. I'd think about what I thought the shot would look like...take the shot...and see where I was surprised (or usually disappointed). Pushing the edge intelligently and mindfully is a great way to learn (for me, at least).
All pie-in-the-sky, kind of spooky stuff. And pretty idealistic, too. And I really don't mean to complicate things. The point, though, is pretty simple: think about what the constraints of the shoot are (or the needful photo is) for just a bit before reaching for the camera.
This isn't meant to be a criticism of your shoot, Dave. And I'm not saying you did it wrong. This is more a general info dump. Stuff that falls out of the compost pile of my brain. I'm also sure that I've left out/forgotten TONS of stuff and will be wanting to edit/add to this post.
BTW, all that stuff on cropping was right on, imo. That's an art itself.
