When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
The desert is mid-bloom right now here in Phoenix. Less rain in February (not sure we got ANY) makes for a subdued flower show, but the ones that are present are really nice...
Core - I didn't see the glow when I took this. Was surprise when I saw it in Lightroom.
Beautiful Welcoming - The flower wasn't this perfectly white. I photoshopped the dirt out. What caught my attention was that it looked like the pedals were holding hands.
Little Giant - This tree looks big, but it was only chest high.
These mean more to me in that I grew this rose than they do in that I took the photo. Still, I'm interested in which is "better" and why. Both are unmanipulated.
I think I prefer #1 because the background is a little less distracting for me. When you say both are "unmanipulated" do you mean you are shooting RAW and doing no post processing? The reason I ask is of you are shooting in JPG, most cameras have default "manipulation" they apply in terms of color, contrast, etc. to render the JPG. You can certainly adjust these, but it;s being done according to what Canon or Nikon decided you might like.
Don't feel like "manipulation" is a bad thing. The camera is really good at capturing clinical light levels, but for me that is often not what my eyes saw. As an example, your rose shots look a little washed out to me and I might consider applying a little saturation and contrast adjustment to render the greens slightly greener and the rose petals slightly more orange and choral. If your shots were taken midday, this is often caused by the brightness of the sun washing out colors. There is one famous outdoor magazine that I heard will ONLY accept photos taken during the golden hour (hour surrounding sunrise/set) because the light is much softer and it produces a more pleasing rendition of colors. If you want to try, take the same pictures of the flower 30 minutes before actual sunset and compare them.
Also, think about what is in the frame besides the flower. If you specifically want it there, keep it. If you don't feel like it adds to the pictures, try to take the picture in a way that removes it (camera positioning, have someone hold a branch back, etc.). sometime just getting closer to the flower removes a lot of unwanted distractions or seemingly empty spaces in a frame (unless you want those elements).
It's all subjective, which is why it's so much fun!
I think I prefer #1 because the background is a little less distracting for me. When you say both are "unmanipulated" do you mean you are shooting RAW and doing no post processing? The reason I ask is of you are shooting in JPG, most cameras have default "manipulation" they apply in terms of color, contrast, etc. to render the JPG. You can certainly adjust these, but it;s being done according to what Canon or Nikon decided you might like.
Don't feel like "manipulation" is a bad thing. The camera is really good at capturing clinical light levels, but for me that is often not what my eyes saw. As an example, your rose shots look a little washed out to me and I might consider applying a little saturation and contrast adjustment to render the greens slightly greener and the rose petals slightly more orange and choral. If your shots were taken midday, this is often caused by the brightness of the sun washing out colors. There is one famous outdoor magazine that I heard will ONLY accept photos taken during the golden hour (hour surrounding sunrise/set) because the light is much softer and it produces a more pleasing rendition of colors. If you want to try, take the same pictures of the flower 30 minutes before actual sunset and compare them.
Also, think about what is in the frame besides the flower. If you specifically want it there, keep it. If you don't feel like it adds to the pictures, try to take the picture in a way that removes it (camera positioning, have someone hold a branch back, etc.). sometime just getting closer to the flower removes a lot of unwanted distractions or seemingly empty spaces in a frame (unless you want those elements).
It's all subjective, which is why it's so much fun!
Jefford, thanks for the feedback. By "unmanipulated", I meant no post-processing. I have not graduated to RAW yet. I don't even thing I shoot on highest red JPEG. I'm still trying to get comfortable with all of the settings of my camera (D3200). I've grown roses for close to 5 more years than I've taken pictures.
The picture was taken around 7 pm. It was in the shade as the sun went down, but a solid hour and a half before the golden hour. I did have another rose a couple days later that looked awesome at 8:30, but I didn't have time to take a pic.
If I find the time to play around with saturation and contrast, I'll see what that does. However, having two young children doesn't lend me very much free time to play around with the stuff I want. That's probably the main reason I haven't moved to RAW. I just don't get enough time to practice photography. Maybe within the next year I'll be there.
^Honestly, the pics look good "as is". looking back on them now, they look less washed out than I recalled. Probably some simple contrast or black point adjustment. The photo editing software that came with your camera is probably just fine for now, I know Canon's DPP works well, not sure what Nikon provides but it's probably similar.
Definitely set your camera to the highest quality JPG you can. That way, if you happen to take an amazing shot and you decide to hang it on your wall, you have the resolution to print it large.
I didn't realize the camera came with software. We bought it used, so the software may not have been included. I'll check though. If not, I use GIMP to edit photos.
Gimp works, but it may be more (much) than you need. It confused me a lot when I first tried using it, but then I knew nothing (still) about using Photoshop, which it mimics.
Was that picture post processed? Wanted to know how to you isolated the flower like that. Looks really nice.
Ya...I process all of my raw files in Lightroom. By isolate do you mean, against the black background? I just placed the flower on a piece of black glass, and I had a black piece of cloth in the back ground. I used a speed light in a softbox, to light the flower, and just made sure no light got to the background, which is why it is totally black.
Ya...I process all of my raw files in Lightroom. By isolate do you mean, against the black background? I just placed the flower on a piece of black glass, and I had a black piece of cloth in the back ground. I used a speed light in a soft box and just made sure no light got to the background, which is why it is totally black.
Oh wow you actually staged it. Very nice. I thought you masked out the background to make it black in Photoshop.
03-20-2016, 03:05 PM
IMG_5582-01 by SameerPai, on Flickr
IMG_5140-01 by SameerPai, on Flickr
IMG_0909 by SameerPai, on Flickr
