Yarrow

[vegematic]

Here is a Yarrow I snapped at Katahdin Stream. First is the full image, then a cropped. Is it cropped effectively? Other comments?
-vegematic

Shooting Info:
File Name IMG_0010.JPG
Camera Model Name Canon PowerShot A610
Shooting Date/Time 07/18/06 12:18:54
Shooting Mode Foliage
Photo Effect Off
Tv (Shutter Speed) 1/60
Av (Aperture Value) 3.5
Light Metering Evaluative
Exposure Compensation 0
ISO Speed Auto
Lens 7.3 - 29.2mm
Focal Length 21.7mm
Digital Zoom None
Image Size 2592x1944
Image Quality Superfine
Flash On
Flash Type Built-In Flash
Flash Exposure Compensation 0
Red-eye On
Shutter curtain sync 1st-curtain
White Balance Auto
AF Mode Single AF
AF Range Mode Macro
Color Space sRGB
File Size 1989KB
Drive Mode Single-frame shooting

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I like the crop better then the non-crop. The non-crop, while it hides the ground by blurring it, is so much empty and un-interesting space. The crop is much more effective. I like the white-on-green contrast.

Having said that, my personal taste for flora is to have a more three-dimensional view. This looks shot top-down and has no depth. Not to say a straight side shot, but maybe 30, 45 or 60 degrees (anything but zero or 90). I also prefer to have some sun.

Tim
p.s. Note that I have zero experience in how to critique flora pictures. This is simply what I like or don't like.

p.p.s. I will post a flora photo for c&c myself.

 

[vegematic]

Thanks for that Tim. I liked the way the foliage came out sort of fading and blurring into the background but I wasn't sure if it added enough depth so your comment about 3-dimensionality was helpful.
-vegematic

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I like the way it sort of appears out of the background myself -- that's a definitely plus of this particular photo. If it were more three-dimensional, I'd say it was a real winner.

Tim

 

[Grumpy]

I prefer a crop that is somewhere between the uncropped version (which is too "loose") and the cropped version (which seems a little too "tight" for my taste). Try cropping top, left and mostly right until the final image is close to square. The dark, out-of-focus background nicely "frames" the poster-like flowers image.

This also could be enhanced by some judicious image sharpening to make the insect and textures in the petals "jump" out.

G.

 

[darren]

Veg, very nice use of depth of field to isolate the subject from the background. The flower pops nicely against the blurred out background.

I agree that the cropped version looks better than the uncropped version. There is too much empty space in the uncropped version. However, I also agree that the cropped version is cropped a little too tightly. The flower could use a little space to breathe.

I went with Grumpy's request for a square crop and I also applied a little unsharp mask in PS:

I like the space around the flower on the top, left, and right in this version better. The bottom is too tight to the frame, but it can't be fixed because it is that tight in the original. You can get stock square frames and matts, so this square crop would be easy to print and frame. The problem of the closeness of the flower to the edge of the frame will become even more of a problem then though. The matt will go over a 1/4" edge of the print and come even closer to, or touch the flower.

Always think of how you will matt the print when you are taking a photo. Leave a little extra room around the edges.

Thanks for sharing.

- darren

 

[forestgnome]

The cropped version is excellent, but I agree with Darren; leave a little room when shooting for the matt if you plan on matting the image. Also, I often prefer to matt such an image with a small portion of the subject (flower) being covered by the matt, instead of there being a tiny space b/w matt and flower.

I saw a focus problem, but the unsharp mask seems to have done the trick. That is remarkable; looks like I have to learn about that one.

Concerning composition, I like the angle you used from straight over the top. I understand Tim's point of view, but I have found that when trying to capture a wildflower like this, I often cannot capture the whole plant and capture the flowers the way I want. So, I'll try both and I usually prefer the image where I concetrated on capturing the flower.

The depth of field is perfect, IMO. I like the way that the leaves are progressively blurry as they descend to the ground, providing great depth.

Happy Trails

 

[vegematic]

Thanks for all the feedback. The square crop and Unsharp Mask really livened up the image. I've messed with sharpening tools a bit in other photo editing programs but have not been particularly impressed with the results, which are often harsh if they are noticeable at all. Is unsharp something different? Or does Photoshop just do it better?
-vegematic

 

[Grumpy]

Photoshop is very sophisticated.

For image sharpening, I prefer to convert the image to "Lab Color" mode and sharpen the "Lightness Channel" using an "Unsharp Mask." Then convert back to the color mode of choice (usually RGB). This produces a sharper looking image without unpleasant harshness or color "halos," etc.

The full technique is very well described and discussed in The CS Photoshop Book For Digital Photographers by Scott Kelby.

G.