Daffodil 3

Foxesbrew · 26-02-2007, 22:03

Daffodil in full bloom ,feed back welcome.

**Dabhand16** · 26-02-2007, 22:25

Saw this in the Gallery, FB. Like it more than the other one, you have caught the texture well. I can't make up my mind if I want to see more of the stem, or less! I think a reflector would have softened the shadows a bit, but overall - nice shot.

Rob Barron · 26-02-2007, 23:44

I am with Graham on the latter point particularly, I think using a reflector positioned down at bottom left to push some light into the shadow areas would have softened the overall tone. I'd also have liked maybe 1 to 1.5 stops down on the aperture to bring the front rim of the flower head into focus so that it is sharp from front to back but I know that isn't easy when the flower has such a deep head and you are trying to get in close. I would have dropped the viewing angle down a touch so that the flower is not looking downwards from the viewers point of view.

Loads of daffs already out so I am sure we'll be seeing plenty more blossoming onto the board soon. A good effort to get us started, thanks Foxes.

Cheers,
Rob

fionaB · 26-02-2007, 23:49

agree with whats already been said, its a lovely image with lots of textures , but the shadows are very harsh

Fi

silver · 27-02-2007, 23:55

another way (one of many) is to use a scrim to help take some of the harshness out of the light,. effectivly putting it all into shadow (or semi-shadow),.

I think also right time of day,. sometimes the clouds make the light 'just right'

Sil

fionaB · 28-02-2007, 00:26

ok whats a scrim?

Charlotte · 28-02-2007, 01:37

Nice one, Foxes

I agree the light's too harsh to portray the delicacy of the flower - early or late in the day would be best for a softer light with softer shadows too.

Angle of view - I would have stepped to one side, i.e. not square on, because it's lost its perspective from this viewpoint, + also the head would then not be covering the bottom petals.

Nice vibrant yellow here + good sharp detail

PS Yeah, what's a scrim?

Foxesbrew · 28-02-2007, 02:01

Thanks for the comments I will be taking more hopefully improyed pics soon.the shot was taken using a set of close up lenses ,+!-+2-+4 and +10,by Foxfoto .They screw on to my 18-55 kit lens.Cost about £15.00 on E Bay and are giving very good results.For close up and macro on the cheap they do a good job.

silver · 28-02-2007, 08:29

yep the closeup is good and sometimes harsh lighting can add to a shot so it's good to play

Sil

scrim is jus semi transparent material put between light source + subject,. perhaps it's not that comon a term tho there are mention of use in some places (google) Photo Division, Tamron USA also Sympatico / MSN Tech & Gadgets : Photography : Seasonal Photography : Index - under summer photo tips

**Dabhand16** · 28-02-2007, 09:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlotte

PS Yeah, what's a scrim?

Scrim is, as Silver says, basically flimsy rags. It was traditionally used by window cleaners before the squeegee was invented to finish off a window. Nowdays it is indeed often white(ish) and is quite good at filtering light.

You are obviously far too young to know these things!

Rob Barron · 28-02-2007, 23:43

I have to say foxes, I am amazed that using +17 close-up filters still allowed you to sit back as far this to get the whole image in and get reasonable depth of field. I don't understand why they are not taking you in VERY close which is what I would expect with such a massive combination of filters. It certainly accounts for the soft front part of the flower but I think you did extremely well to get as much sharp focus as you did. Did you keep the lens on the wider end of the range?

Any chance of giving us the exif info, shutter speed, ISO and aperture? I am intrigued. I am never sure how accurate the info is when seen in the gallery. I know it is inaccurate for a lot of Canon cameras but yours is Nikon. Did you really use all those filters yet still use 1/3200th second as the exposure at f5.6? If so, what strength lighting were you using as I see you weren't using on-camera flash.

I am just being nosey really but am fascinated to know the details as using a lens with 4 filters (and maybe a 5th if you had a UV on as well) and still getting 1/3200th seems unusual to say the list.

Cheers,
Rob

Foxesbrew · 01-03-2007, 00:22

Obviously i was not using all of them!

01-03-2007, 01:40	#13 (permalink)
Charlotte Loves the place Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Romsey, Hampshire Posts: 6,564