Not exactly sure what is meant by not having any background flowers overlap. Looking at the photo, I find the background flower directly behind the subject flower distracting. Is that what you were referring too?

Yes, both good photos. Yes, directly behind distracting. AND, best way to show off any subject is to have a contrasting background. 2nd photo viewed in B&W has too many mid tones on a mid tone background. No color picture is good in color if it isn't also good in B&W !

I enjoy how Baja gets emotionally attached to pictures of plants. Refreshing. Sadly, I teach photography and my responses tend to be about photography and not the subject. I get that in my classes once in a while. "But, that is my niece and she is wonderful. How can you say that any one picture is better than another?" Implication being any picture of her will be great. Perhaps all of you should take a large grain of salt to any of my comments.

https://garden.org/thread/view...

Thanks,
I like the suggestion of viewing a color photo in black and white. Being a gardener, we do look at photos differently than "just" photographers.

That's a good tip Gene, thanks!

Very interesting and informative thread! I learned from Gene last fall that most of my pictures were out of focus...something I hadn't even noticed before! My camera is nothing fancy, so it can be difficult to impossible to get good macro shots of my flowers. One trick I use is to take the picture as close as I can get it to stay in focus, and then zoom in on the picture and crop it. These are two pictures I got recently that way...unfortunately I deleted the originals. Hmmm, on second glance I see they are still a bit out of focus, but much closer than I would have been able to get otherwise...

dirtdorphins said:Achieving focus is always a bit of an adventure for me maintaining it is impossible
Okay so, back to photography--not sure if this works as an example,

• Arilbred Iris (Iris 'Stolon Ginger')
• Uploaded by dirtdorphins

vs

I was going for the wild glowing colors and the veins in the standards. 100mm, f/5.6, at twilight
I decided that the first is a better picture overall because the background was more homogeneous and further away from the subject so it kind of became irrelevant. In the second, I'm quite fond of the perspective on the iris and the glow and the veins, but, the other irises and leaves in the background, although blurred, are still unpleasant, blobby-spiky distractors. They aren't quite close enough to be part of the subject as a group shot and they are too close to be a decent background.
With the shorter focal length of a 100mm lens, backgrounds don't stack and fade away quite like they do with a longer focal length. I have discovered with repeated shots like the second one, that it really helps if I can find an angle of 'isolation'. Really hard to do with everything all jammed together in my gardens though, and limited space for me to get access.

Dirt, I think this is a good example of how we can improve our backgrounds. I prefer the first photo because of the background and also because you found a better angle on the flower that allows more of it to be in focus. I understand the reasons for wanting to have other angles as well, but for me the first angle is perfect. Colors and light are just wonderful.

I hope @carlysuko doesn't mind being invited to the party. Here are 3 Leucospermum photos that Carly recently uploaded to the database. The subject is wonderfully colorful and I thought they were kind of relevant to this thread.

The focus is consistently on the red/white flower parts toward the front (bottom) of the frame, but the other parts of the flower are out of focus in different ways.

I like the way the flower comes out slightly differently each time. In the first shot, most of the red/white flower parts are in focus, with the orange parts above and slightly hazy. This would be the keeper if I had to choose, for clarity and entirety. In the second shot, slightly closer, only some of the red/white parts are in focus, the rest sort of fading back from there. Doing that sort of gives the flower more depth and fullness. There's a lot of good detail here. The third shot is sort of intermediate, but it has the advantage (me getting overemotional again here ) of showing the center, which I like, and which the other shots do not do.

Cool flower!
I wonder what the time difference is between the shots to catch the unfurling--what a catch!
And a fine adventure in focus
I like the unfurled photo the best, also; really appreciate seeing the grand escape, though. Makes the first pic all the more special. Nice job Carly!

Let me throw some thoughts in to this. Where to focus depends on what the subject is. Let's say I have a bunch of students on a field trip at my house taking pictures. I see one person bent over a flower. If I walk up to them and ask what are you taking pix of they will respond - that flower. Since part of teaching can be being the devil's advocate, my usual response is - no you are not. Years of experience have taught me that 98% of the time the subject is not the entire flower but instead, one aspect of that flower. The texture of the petals, the curve of the stem, the fuzzy pistils, the contrast of the color vs. the background, height, size, etc. You need to decide what the subject is before you can determine where to focus. This applies to all pictures, not just flowers. The single biggest thing I can do to help all of my students get better pictures is to make them decide what the subject is, what they are after, before they even touch their camera. If you know what you want, you might go home with it. Gene

That's beautiful!

Thanks !

Gene, I like the selective focus, there are nice painterly qualities and it is overall a really pleasant photo.
My only suggestion would be to brighten the image a bit.

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 !

really?
I hesitate to imagine what that 'sounded like' before the edit.
Albeit dark and dreamy (or is that dreary?), the photo is moderately inspiring, on my calibrated monitor; the commentary is not.
Monitors and calibration aside, the histogram of that image is what it is.

Easy now, folks.

Gene, I agree that it should be possible to get good results without post-processing, but it has its place.

I'm afraid the photo doesn't actually do much for me. What was the aim with this particular image?

Sorry If I am too adamant. Took me many years to get to the point where I can get the image I want. I remember my first roll of film. When I picked up the prints at the drug store I truly thought they had handed me someone else's pictures. They were not even close to what I wanted. Most of my students love Photoshop because it can save them when they err. Wouldn't it be nice not to have to edit your pix? Yes, getting the right exposure, the one you need can be a very personal thing. Some like things lighter or darker than others.

I've not participated much in this forum for the past long while because straight-up, authoritative, blanket statements irritate me. And I don't come to this site to be irritated.

I think that Gene makes a very good point that we'd all do well to remember as we discuss photography here:

gasrocks said:...getting the right exposure...can be a very personal thing. Some like things lighter or darker than others.

Thankfully, people have very, very different tastes. Those who have commented on the last shot that you posted, Gene, (I'll include myself here) think it would be a more compelling photo were it lighter. By no means does it mean you're wrong shooting it like you did. It's clear that you made the art that you wanted. But, that said, your audience might be more moved by a lighter shot. Taste. You didn't shoot it to please us - but the flipside of that is that the consensus is that it would be more pleasing were it lighter. None of that is of any consequence apart from the fact that it's okay that both ideas (you created what you wanted - this audience might appreciate it more were it lighter) are true.

The other thing to remember is that photographs are shot for - exist for - are brought into existence (final cause) for different reasons. Take a beautiful actress, for example. Her passport photo and her headshot photo will look very, very different - and the headshot will have the dickens post-processed (photoshopped) out of it. And it should. Otherwise it wouldn't serve its purpose. . A mugshot is not a portrait. Nor should it be. They exist for different reasons.

So as we fiddle around here in this forum, trying to learn from and help each other, realize that both taste (not only in terms of light/dark) and purpose (of the shot) are in play here.

(Sidenote: I've found that creating and critiquing are very different skills. In my career, I've found that some people are brilliant at generating written content - while others truly excel at editing even though they are mediocre at content creation. I think the same is true with other art forms - including photography.)

With those ideas in mind, and while I'm still on my soapbox, I will agree that (back to the purpose of this thread) straight-up, authoritative, blanket statement that it's not a good idea to have a bunch of out of focus foreground - generally. But exceptions are also interesting and this ought to be a place to be able to discuss those rather than be shut down by a NEVER DO THIS OR THAT statement.

To wit, while I'm fairly pleased with both of the shots from yesterday evening that follow (no processing - straight out of the camera in Gene's honor (tho I suspect each could do with a little tweaking)), I find the first, all mucked up with out-of-focus cherry leaves in the foreground, to be more compelling than the latter. (Both shot with a 300mm (full-frame sensor so it's not popped up to 450) at f/4.5, ISO-800, 1/125.)




A matter of taste? Yes. A broken "rule"? Yes. But to my eye, the first is much more interesting for lots of reasons - most of which are imparted by that out of focus mess of the cherry leaves.

(Sidenote: I have an awful time trying to take pics of darker flowers, birds, pets, etc. Gives me fits.)

Finally, Gene, at the risk of offending you, please realize that your edicts and dismissals usually land as well on your audience as the "lighten that one up" comments landed on you. Well, often worse. Not much give and take. It's exhausting to read through invective. And by looking at all the photographs (professionally published and otherwise) that we're barraged with daily, it's clear that the scope of tastes is broad - as is the purpose for different shots.

And that's why we're here, in the main: to figure out how to improve the shots we take (both for their purpose and to our tastes). I'm not here to learn to become a Gene clone (or be told I'm not one). I'm here to listen to Gene (and everyone else) and incorporate those bits of skill and experience that they're willing to edify me with -- in order to better develop my abilities to shoot to my shot's purpose and my particular tastes. Hope that made sense.

Oh, and thanks for the tip on looking at shots in B&W. Absolutely invaluable.