Intentional OOF in Flora Photography

In closeups and most especially in more artistic closeups in flora photography, how does one know when to have part of a shot OOF intentionally, so that people know it was intentional and not unintentional? Are there guidelines for that? It seems like the flora closeups that are part OOF intentionally are the ones that make me think "wow" when I see them, but I don't know how to get there from here I guess is what I'm saying. In flora closeups, as long as the focus in the center of the plant or flower is good or great, is that when intentional OOF for the rest is okay? If you have no idea what I mean, please tell me and I'll try to think how to word it differently. Thank you so much for your help.

Hi Barbara. Find the images where you say "WoW" and analyze where the point of focus is and the equipment the maker used. Most likely the soft focus images are done with a macro lens or a macro filter/diopter that screws on the end of the lens. Usually a soft focus image has the center or the edges of the petals in focus, but you have to find the right flower that has a pleasing flow to its lines. There is also "cramming" where the subject flower is shot through other flowers, making a colorful haze in front of the flower. I don't know what lenses you have, but experiment and have fun trying new things.

Hi Barbara

Check out this article on cramming by Nathan Buck; http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0709/nb0709-1.html

Barbara, If you can share some examples of the photos you liked, it may be easier to guide you. Sometimes a picture does indeed say a thousand words.

Ram, I think you're right, and I think what I'm talking about is the abstract images that you and several others post. They seem far ahead of what I can do at this point, both with the equipment and the complex processing.

A couple of examples in which the posters don't specifically mention complex processing (but I know that doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't complex processing) are SOA Zinnia posted by Philip Southard on 08/15/10 at 10:10 pm EST and Anemone posted by elisabeth czwikla on 08/24/10 at 1:23 pm EST.

Am I correct or incorrect in that there is quite a bit more processing involved in those I mention in the first paragraph than those I mention in the second paragraph? And for those in the second paragraph and others like them, does the success of the image depend on the choice of a good point of focus?

Thank you!

Am I correct or incorrect in that there is quite a bit more processing involved in those I mention in the first paragraph than those I mention in the second paragraph? And for those in the second paragraph and others like them, does the success of the image depend on the choice of a good point of focus?

Barbara, I will speak to my images first.

I never alter my photos to throw any area out of focus. What you basically see is what I shot. Of course, I may adjust colors, sharpen, clone out pollen dust to increase aesthetic appeal and all those minor things but I never do any material changes to the photo. It is possible to do however (but it almost always shows to a trained eye. Whether someone explicitly mentions it as a feedback or not is another thing). "Photoshopping" unfortunately is used like "Photochopping" today and its natural for such questions to arise.

I looked at Philip Southard's photo you mention (and without knowing what Philip did) and I can tell you that its possible to get that effect right out of the camera. I will not be surprised if Philip comes back and says the exact same thing.

The very same thing goes for Elizabeth Czwikla's photo you alluded to.

However, one caveat. You may not be able to get that effect (for the same view) using a Point and Shoot Camera. I wrote about it as a comment in one of your recent photos (of a butterfly on the Macro Forum if I remember right).

Here's an example of my own. This is an image that I didn't post in Flora. If the center of this rose was completely in focus, would this be a good image? Or would, for example, the small petal curling over the center also need to be in focus for this to work? Or would other things have to be in focus? At a beginner level, this is the kind of image that I'm wondering about. What does it need as far as focus and OOF to be good instead of something that I wouldn't feel at all comfortable posting? Thank you again.

Barbara: Since I own an earlier version of your camera I can tell you that indeed the gear is a limiting factor. The S2 IS was my first digital camera and for some things it was wonderful. Note that the f-stop was f8. With my 200mm macro to get the same DOF I would have had to shoot at f22 or above. This shot of the same kind of flower was taken with a DSLR and 200mm macro. Note how much less overall DOF there is even though the second image is shot at a bit more magnification. Both of these shots won EPs before I became a moderator. The down side to the S-series cameras is that even at f2.8 there is a lot of DOF and it is really tough to get a shallow effect. Another thing I found impossible to do was focus the camera manually. The power focusing button was way too sloppy and practically worthless. Bear in mind I was a pretty advanced film SLR shooter and really hated the EVF and the viewing screen. I was used to having a bright large viewfinder and being able to precisely refine my focus manually. If you haven't used a SLR I think you will be amazed at how much easier it is to get the kind of results you're after. Another absolute necessity for consistent results at high magnification/close focus is a tripod. Even with IS you can't get the best result hand held.

Despite the gear limitations you can still get great images with your camera although probably not with the shallow DOF you would like. Work on finding comps where you can fill the frame with the subject and where high DOF is desirable. Consider a small tripod if you don't already have one. You do have good vision and that's something you can't buy. >=))>

Barbara, you said: "Ram, I think you're right, and I think what I'm talking about is the abstract images that you and several others post. They seem far ahead of what I can do at this point, both with the equipment and the complex processing"

Don't feel bad... Ram, Pat S, Bill F. and others ARE far ahead of most of us!
It takes a good while to "see" a potential image the way these guys do, then to capture it well and process it well too.
Keep trying, practicing, posting, and learning.

That's the best any of us can do!
Sandy r

Barbara: You posted your example while I was composing my first reply. This is a great example of controlling the point of focus (POF). If the FG petal covering the center was sharper along with the center you would have a better image. The BG might end up a little soft but most people are bothered more by FG blur that BG blur. About the only exception in my mind is a cram shot. >=))>

PS: All of my images that I cited in my first reply were right out of the camera. No post-processing assistance was needed.

Hey Barbara. I love shooting florals andespecially with "selective focus" which is what I was tought it was called. Alot of how I make these images is with a proper macro lens that allows the most shallow dof such as my 2.8 60 mm Canon. By opening that lens all the way at 2.8 you can select your point of focus and the rest will softly blur into it. It takes a little practice but eventually you will just start to feel your way to the right points of focus and start to see amazing images appear thru your viewfinder. Keep in mind the rule of thirds when selecting your point of focus as well

Barbara, I'd like to add just one more comment to your question.
I don't know your camera gear and yes, most likely it does have limitations. Many of us are in your shoes. I lust for a perfect macro lens that would permit me to shoot the tiniest of subjects, and I don't have the wherewithal to simply pop out and buy it
So that means that we, as photographers, may have to work perhaps three times as hard as someone who has the perfect camera; the perfect lens. Perhaps we have to shoot three times as many images; perhaps we have to come up with different angles, different f/stops, different lighting.
(As an aside, I'm currently working on learning how to stack images. Even as we speak, I'm working on a small seashell. And in search of the image I see in my head, I've had three shooting sessions. )
I would encourage you to get to know your camera and explore every feature. One of the NPN photographers, as he was learning to shoot birds, shared that frequently he would go out in the morning and maybe shoot 200 images.
So keep experimenting and sure post your images to get feedback. Cheryl's comment is so accurate; the more you feel your way, you will start to see amazing images appear.
Look at how far you have come in a very short time.
Bill and others have already said pretty much the same thing but in different words.

And keep shooting.



Carol

Hmmm…, thought provoking question, Barbara, and I'm glad you asked it.

I started exploring shallow dof because of images I saw in Flora that I liked. NathanBuck was my primary inspiration. Like so many things in photography the short answer to your question is, "It depends." Shallow dof can be used to accomplish many things: separating the subject from the background (bg); making an image look more abstract; creating a "dreamy" effect: and in flora where close-ups or macro are used a lot, shallow dof can emphasize a particular feature of a part of a plant or flower.

For me these images come as a result of "working the subject." Lots of shots of the same fascinating flower-- different angles, distances from the flower, different apertures and shutter speeds; flash and or reflector or not, diffuser panel, etc. Most often, there is a macro lens on my camera, or a zoom with extension tubes so that there is a magnification factor. Centering my attention on what drew me to the subject, I explore the scene (which is typically one flower or part of a flower, or tightly grouped flowers) through the viewfinder while I inch myself into different points of view. Use of the dof preview button on the camera helps to show me what I can expect for a final result.

All of this is much more effective with a DSLR I think, as Bill mentioned. A point-and-shoot will limit what you can do overall. In your image above, there is a nice glow from the back of the flower (backlit), so the flower center is darker. Here, a reflector could be used to bounce a little light into the center, while still retaining the look of the glow. The petal that partially hides the flower center is another key element that could either be out of focus (oof) or sharp depending… So take shots of it both ways. Knowing your camera will help decide what will be in focus or oof and how you can use your gear to its best advantage. And the best way to understand that is, as Sandy, Carol and Cheryl said, is to practice a LOT, LOT, LOT. Run home, throw 'em up on the computer, figure out what you might do differently, and run back out to the same subject and try it.

Hope that helps… Have fun! with this. And show us what can be done with YOUR camera! Would love to see it.

Barbara -

The "Purple Queen" image on the floral gallery (page 2 as I write this) is yours, isn't it?

That is not an image that you can teach someone to find and it certainly isn't a "beginner's" composition.

Yes, equipment is going to limit some of what you can do. Equipment isn't everything, though. You still need to know how to use it and, more importantly, how to "see" with it. Looking through the images you have posted, I am seeing a lot of long term potential. As the others have said, keep shooting, keep trying things and keep posting.

Thank you very much for all this information. I was looking at everything full screen instead of actual pixels. So when you look at an image actual pixels, if they are in focus will they be in sharp focus at actual pixel size? That may be a really stupid question, but I'm still struggling with focus and really working to try to figure it out both with the camera and with information. There's a lot of info available on the Canon S5, so I still have a lot of that to go through.

Hi Barbara.

I am just going to comment on a question that you made in your first post. You asked:

"...how does one know when to have part of a shot OOF intentionally, so that people know it was intentional and not unintentional?"

I think the key here is that it does not matter if people think that it was intentional or not, it just matters if the shot was effective. If you end up saying 'Wow', then I would guess that the shot has been effective. If something about the shot does not sit right with you, then I would say that it was not effective. What someone 'thinks' that I was trying to accomplish is not important - it just matters whether the shot has achieved its goal of being aesthetically pleasing.

I have posted many, many shots with selective focus in my time here at NPN, and some of them end up being effective, and others definitely have not been. The key is to learn from those ineffective ones, and make the changes that people suggest in their critiques. Though I still do not always make effective images - that is just human nature.

I am flattered by the posters in this thread who have used my photos as en example. Thank you!

Nathan