One of the things I like about this forum it that folk share ideas. This image is the result of a suggestion made by John MacPherson in response to a previous poppy post.
John suggested that an interesting effect might be gained by using a long exposure to produce a blur of red in the poppy head. I've take that idea and experimented with some very long exposures.
This is the 'best' result so far - it was taken at dusk in very low light levels with a small amount of breeze.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
Chris
1ds3, 70-200, 2 mins @ f2.8, ISO 100, tripod, mirror up + timer release.
Mmmm, not sure on this one Chris, a very good idea but maybe would be better with more "punch" brighter green and red with no poppies in the background, well done for trying something different
Posted by Karen Summers on June 27, 2010 at 11:25 AM
I agree interesting idea which appeals to me think these images always look very arty but I am not sure more sharpness would make it any better it needs the background with a soft feel to it to make it work in my opinion and I agree the main poppy maybe more in focus, not sure
Its good to experiment and digital is a great tool for that, Not all experiments work and this doesnt work for me, It just looks like a bad case of camera shake-worth a try though
Worthwhile experimentation Chris but I feel that with a long exposure of this sort of subject there needs to be more apparent movement in the flower ie, a stronger breeze. As it is shown here it looks too much as if it could be camera shake as Dave mentions.(mind you, if I ever unintentionally produced that much camera shake on an image I'd sell all my gear!!!!).
Hmm. I quite like this (no surprise there!) however if it were mine I'd crop it square, to remove the poppy on the right, with the main poppy full on in centre with that lovely subtle ring of oof poppies behind.
I think that in these types of shot theres a threshold beyond which stuff gets really unpredictable, and the differences between one frame and the next can be vast, with the varying influence of wind and light coming into play. I do think that sometimes the best way to conjure in people's minds the effect of 'softness' is to juxtapose the soft with something 'hard'. And in the case of this image, the possibility of the 'softness' being caused by camera shake as Dave observed, would be removed completely.
For example - the same exposure time on a rising and falling seascape would give a soft smoky wash of unsharp water, not unpleasant at all in itself, but if one was to include a large solid and very unyielding rock in the frame the combination becomes something totally different, and in my experience sometimes more powerful. The soft seascape contrasting with the solidity of the rock.
Now whether that technique used here would yield a better image I'm not sure, it would be a different image, and worth exploring, and obviosuly dependent on whats available to include.
I'll post an example - solid tree, all-over-the-place ferns, neither by itself a compelling subject, but together maybe a wee bit more interesting?
Works quite well in a Monet-ish sort of way for me. I like the muted background poppies circling the brighter main one. However, the brighter-coloured poppy in the bottom left corner competes too much for attention and drags my eye away from the main subject, so I would tone down its colour to match the other duller-coloured blooms.
Posted by Lewis Thomson on June 28, 2010 at 12:41 PM
Hi Chris,
Well done for trying different approaches once again. I actually quite like it as an artistic shot as it is. I can see the point about the oof flowers dragging the eye, but that only entered my mind after I read the comments.
Discussion
10 repliesOne of the things I like about this forum it that folk share ideas. This image is the result of a suggestion made by John MacPherson in response to a previous poppy post.
John suggested that an interesting effect might be gained by using a long exposure to produce a blur of red in the poppy head. I've take that idea and experimented with some very long exposures.
This is the 'best' result so far - it was taken at dusk in very low light levels with a small amount of breeze.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
Chris
1ds3, 70-200, 2 mins @ f2.8, ISO 100, tripod, mirror up + timer release.
Dave
Cheers,
Chris
a very good idea and fine attempt at it, however in this case a little bit more abstract might have worked better
I think that in these types of shot theres a threshold beyond which stuff gets really unpredictable, and the differences between one frame and the next can be vast, with the varying influence of wind and light coming into play. I do think that sometimes the best way to conjure in people's minds the effect of 'softness' is to juxtapose the soft with something 'hard'. And in the case of this image, the possibility of the 'softness' being caused by camera shake as Dave observed, would be removed completely.
For example - the same exposure time on a rising and falling seascape would give a soft smoky wash of unsharp water, not unpleasant at all in itself, but if one was to include a large solid and very unyielding rock in the frame the combination becomes something totally different, and in my experience sometimes more powerful. The soft seascape contrasting with the solidity of the rock.
Now whether that technique used here would yield a better image I'm not sure, it would be a different image, and worth exploring, and obviosuly dependent on whats available to include.
I'll post an example - solid tree, all-over-the-place ferns, neither by itself a compelling subject, but together maybe a wee bit more interesting?
Hi Chris,
Well done for trying different approaches once again. I actually quite like it as an artistic shot as it is. I can see the point about the oof flowers dragging the eye, but that only entered my mind after I read the comments.
Cheers,
Lewis.