Been playing around in the backyard and photographed this while lying on my stomach. The neighbor actually came outside to see what the heck I was doing. I've never really done any macro photography and am experimenting with it a bit these days. This is the first one I've done that I really like, but I have no idea what the heck I'm doing. So, I'm posting it here for your honest critiques.
Also, if anyone can identify the little bug (some kind of bee?) I will be most appreciative. Thanks for looking!
I think the insect is what we called "sweat bees" when I was a kid, but that was back in Illinois and I'm 100% sure that wasn't their actual name. Who knows what might resemble sweat bees and yet not be them out here in Colorado where the air is much thinner..?
Not sure if this will be valuable to you or not, but I think I would prefer the flower center be weighted to the bottom - the image looks top heavy to me. And if it were me, I would try to eliminate anything that wasn't part of the flower, so that it was a background entirely composed of the paler outer petals. I think the depth of field that blurs the edges of the lower petals actually works against the composition. A square crop to cut out the dark at the bottom and re-weight the point of interest might work well. But that all makes it sound like I don't like it very much when this is actually precisely the sort of thing I like to shoot myself and I'm quite impressed with the clarity and color.
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on March 23, 2006 at 8:11 PM
FWIW - I feel the same way Becky does about the composition. The background behind the flower is distracting and adds nothing for me.
The blue fringe along the flower, lower right, edge looks like CA ???
If so, you should be able to eliminate it easily in the RAW conversion (PS lens correction tab).
Posted by Todd Caudle on March 23, 2006 at 8:55 PM
I'd just crop a little off the bottom and it'll be fine. Better than fine, in fact. What's throwing people is the little bit of OOF background, and the fact that the pedal tips get cut off just a tiny bit. Either show all the petal or crop more off. The latter is better.
Thanks, folks. I tried a square crop but frankly, I didn't like it as it was too "centered".
Bill: Yes, it is a bit of CA. I use the Canon RAW converter which doesn't have the lens correction feature. Anyone have other ideas for getting rid of it?
I appreciate the sincere critiques. If it's cloudy again tomorrow I'll be out in the yard playing around again.
Not sure I'd crop it too square, but definitely lop off the lower petal until you -just- reached a solid petal background. A good photograph should give you pause for just a moment as your brain tries to process what it is you're seeing. Removing that lower part does just that for me. But you're right - I wouldn't make it square, as it just doesn't seem as nice a comp.
You might also experiment with a little more DOF. I generally use f16, or more, for subjects with some depth, like this one.
Let's see some more!
Ken
Posted by Scott Buckel on March 24, 2006 at 8:43 AM
Bret - I really like the image and the following comments are little nits. I think a crop from the bottom, leaving the image as a rectangle like Todd suggested would polish the image a little more. The other detail that kind of sticks out to me is the the right hand side of the flower is out ofhte region of apparent sharpness. I am not sure what aperture you were using, but if you coule have gone a couple of more stops that edge could have sharpened. If you do our raw conversion in PS you will be able to remove that slight fringing.
The bee is what I grew up calling a sweat bee, just like others have mentioned. They seem to like the hover around you as you sweat - I think you will learn to "enjoy" them in you new locale.
This is why I love this place so much! Ask for suggestions and ye shall receive. So, here is a cropped version of the photo. Is this what ya'll had in mind?
Scott: Next time I'll experiment with different apertures to vary the DOF. I was going for a shallow DOF here, but maybe it just isn't shallow enough. I sort of wanted the bee and pistil(?) to be in focus while the rest fell out of focus. Didn't quite achieve that and I'm not so sure it would have worked, any way.
So, with most macro is it generally more acceptable to maximize or minimize DOF or, like everything else, is it a matter of taste?
Thanks again for all the great responses!
Posted by Scott Buckel on March 24, 2006 at 10:26 AM
Bret - I used to shoot macro quite frequently and I learned one thing.
You need either a selective focus (shallow DOF) or incredible huge DOF. Image that are inbetween frequently do not work.
Posted by Chuck Peacock on March 24, 2006 at 11:12 AM
I like!
Scott's last comment about DOF is very much true from what I can tell.
Being a beekeeper I take exception to this being called a "bee". (not really )
It's a hover fly (don't know the specific name) that mimics a bee but it's definitely not a bee. Bees have 4 wings too.
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on March 24, 2006 at 11:17 AM
Yes, I prefer this version, and it takes care of the CA.
Discussion
15 repliesAlso, if anyone can identify the little bug (some kind of bee?) I will be most appreciative. Thanks for looking!
1Ds MKII, 24-105mm lens, 25mm extension tube
RichieV
Not sure if this will be valuable to you or not, but I think I would prefer the flower center be weighted to the bottom - the image looks top heavy to me. And if it were me, I would try to eliminate anything that wasn't part of the flower, so that it was a background entirely composed of the paler outer petals. I think the depth of field that blurs the edges of the lower petals actually works against the composition. A square crop to cut out the dark at the bottom and re-weight the point of interest might work well. But that all makes it sound like I don't like it very much when this is actually precisely the sort of thing I like to shoot myself and I'm quite impressed with the clarity and color.
The blue fringe along the flower, lower right, edge looks like CA ???
If so, you should be able to eliminate it easily in the RAW conversion (PS lens correction tab).
Bill: Yes, it is a bit of CA. I use the Canon RAW converter which doesn't have the lens correction feature. Anyone have other ideas for getting rid of it?
I appreciate the sincere critiques. If it's cloudy again tomorrow I'll be out in the yard playing around again.
You might also experiment with a little more DOF. I generally use f16, or more, for subjects with some depth, like this one.
Let's see some more!
Ken
The bee is what I grew up calling a sweat bee, just like others have mentioned. They seem to like the hover around you as you sweat - I think you will learn to "enjoy" them in you new locale.
Scott: Next time I'll experiment with different apertures to vary the DOF. I was going for a shallow DOF here, but maybe it just isn't shallow enough. I sort of wanted the bee and pistil(?) to be in focus while the rest fell out of focus. Didn't quite achieve that and I'm not so sure it would have worked, any way.
So, with most macro is it generally more acceptable to maximize or minimize DOF or, like everything else, is it a matter of taste?
Thanks again for all the great responses!
You need either a selective focus (shallow DOF) or incredible huge DOF. Image that are inbetween frequently do not work.
Scott's last comment about DOF is very much true from what I can tell.
Being a beekeeper I take exception to this being called a "bee". (not really
It's a hover fly (don't know the specific name) that mimics a bee but it's definitely not a bee. Bees have 4 wings too.