Poinsettia

[Anita Bower]

I went to see the Longwood Gardens Conservatory Xmas exhibit yesterday. Although Poinsettias are not my favorites, I liked the perfection and colors of this one.
Nikon D300, tripod, Sigma 105mm macro; f40, 0.5 sec., ISO 200.
Processed in Elements 10: clone out specks of dirt, selective burn, high pass filter; Topaz Detail; Color Efex Pro Darken/Lighten Center; Topaz DeNoise.

[Jonathan Ashton]

Wow Anita you certainly used some processing here, I like the image, I suspect you have deliberately made the larger leaves soft to concentrate attention on the central portion, which is not quite central - a good choice I think. An interesting and eye catching image.

[Anita Bower]

Wow Anita you certainly used some processing here, I like the image, I suspect you have deliberately made the larger leaves soft to concentrate attention on the central portion, which is not quite central - a good choice I think. An interesting and eye catching image.
Thanks, Jonathan. Actually, the processing on this is less than I usually do. :tinysmile_shy_t: Actually, I didn't soften the outer leaves. The center of these Poinsettias were perfect and quite detailed. I did try to bring out more color in those little yellow leaves.
A question: is this too processed for this forum?

[Jonathan Ashton]

Anita I would not say it is too processed, no not at all. I hope I am not giving bad vibes by my previous comments - not at all intentional. I would hesitate to say when an image was "too processed" - you know how the debate goes on and on and on etc. over what is acceptable and what is not, the point to remember here is that we submit images for critique we are not entering a competition where there are very strict rules and which incidentally are being debated worldwide despite acceptance by PSA FIAP RPS etc.

[Anita Bower]

Anita I would not say it is too processed, no not at all. I hope I am not giving bad vibes by my previous comments - not at all intentional. I would hesitate to say when an image was "too processed" - you know how the debate goes on and on and on etc. over what is acceptable and what is not, the point to remember here is that we submit images for critique we are not entering a competition where there are very strict rules and which incidentally are being debated worldwide despite acceptance by PSA FIAP RPS etc.
Thanks for your response. I was not put off by your comments, and I do the processing that pleases me and don't pay attention to what others think. I do, however, want to post to the proper forum here at BPN. That is what I was getting at. I moved over to OOTB when I started using textures. I'll keep posting my non-textured and fairly normal looking images here. You can let me know when I should put them over in OOTB. Hopefully I can post on both, assuming I have the time. :-)

[John Robinson]

Hi Anita
Certainly some processing on this one.! The positioning etc is sot on but I am affraid the focus/detail seems to be lacking somewhat- especially in the flower /central area. The stigmas/styles in the central area are just not sharp.
Easily re done though I would imagine. Could be my monitor!
Cheers
JohnR

[Anita Bower]

Hi Anita
Certainly some processing on this one.! The positioning etc is sot on but I am affraid the focus/detail seems to be lacking somewhat- especially in the flower /central area. The stigmas/styles in the central area are just not sharp.
Easily re done though I would imagine. Could be my monitor!
Cheers
JohnR
Thanks for your feedback. It isn't your monitor--I just took a closer look. I had my lens closed all the way down. Do you think I focused too far back, that is beyond the stamens? How would I avoid this in the future?

[John Robinson]

Anita
Looking again I reckon its the stopping down to f40. Its never recommended for pin sharp close ups. Thats why we do stacking because the sharpest result fom a lens is often quoted as 2 or 3 stops from wide open. I would try backing away a lillte which will give you more depth of fild and use f16- focussing more or less on the nearest part of the centre feature. Remember theres more in focus behind where you focus than in front..Just my thoughts.

I think its the f40 thats the problem You are getting into what is known as the difraction zone where nothing will be pin sharp whatever you do.

Cheers
John

[Anita Bower]

Anita
Looking again I reckon its the stopping down to f40. Its never recommended for pin sharp close ups. Thats why we do stacking because the sharpest result fom a lens is often quoted as 2 or 3 stops from wide open. I would try backing away a lillte which will give you more depth of fild and use f16- focussing more or less on the nearest part of the centre feature. Remember theres more in focus behind where you focus than in front..Just my thoughts.

I think its the f40 thats the problem You are getting into what is known as the difraction zone where nothing will be pin sharp whatever you do.

Cheers
John
Thanks, John. Will give it a try.

[Diane Miller]

I love this; great colors and composition. On first glance thought it was very sharp. But f/40 should be way beyond where diffraction is softening an image. I second John on experimenting with different apertures to see where things start getting soft. It's usually creeping in by f/11 to f/13.

Focus stacking is such a wonderful technique and not difficult, and might be a good thing to try with an image like this. (But don't quit doing your wonderful narrow DOF things!)

[Anita Bower]

I love this; great colors and composition. On first glance thought it was very sharp. But f/40 should be way beyond where diffraction is softening an image. I second John on experimenting with different apertures to see where things start getting soft. It's usually creeping in by f/11 to f/13.

Focus stacking is such a wonderful technique and not difficult, and might be a good thing to try with an image like this. (But don't quit doing your wonderful narrow DOF things!)
I plan to go back to Longwood Gardens on Tuesday and experiment with different f stops and focus points.
I dabbled a bit with focus stacking some years ago; I don't have the patience for it.
Getting sharp images has always been my weakness.

[Ron Conlon]

I like the comp and colors a lot. And this flower is in its prime.

[Norm Dulak]

Nice image, Anita. But Longwood Gardens flowers speak for themselves; excessive post-processing is not required. And I agree with the others above that severely stopping down the lens invites diffraction softening. I would not go beyond f/16. Still, you have a beautiful subject here that is colorful and well composed. :S3:

[Anita Bower]

Nice image, Anita. But Longwood Gardens flowers speak for themselves; excessive post-processing is not required. And I agree with the others above that severely stopping down the lens invites diffraction softening. I would not go beyond f/16. Still, you have a beautiful subject here that is colorful and well composed. :S3:
Thank you, Norm. I think I will stick to the OOTB forum, where softness in images passes muster.

[Norm Dulak]

Thank you, Norm. I think I will stick to the OOTB forum, where softness in images passes muster.

Anita. Please don't do that. You have a good eye and are a fine photographer, and you have much to contribute to this forum. Please learn from the comments on this forum as we all do, and continue to post here.

Norm

[Diane Miller]

I second Norm's comment! Although focus stacks are wonderful, not every image has to have complete depth of field. I love selective focus, where the main subject is sharp and focus drops off in other areas. There is a fuzzy line between whether those fit best in Macro/Flora or OOTB, but I'd go with the one that seemed the closest fit. I often wonder what some of the images in OOTB would look like without the filters or textures, and wonder sometimes if they are added just to make things fit in a category better, since there is no place here for "straight" photography that isn't avian, wildlife, macro or flora.

I think we should start an "Anti-f/64" movement!

[Anita Bower]

Norm and Diane: Thanks. I fear I let a funk overcome me when I wrote my last comment. The goal is to learn, and that is why I participate on these forums. Re. textures, etc., I use them because I like them.

[Diane Miller]

I like them too, love them, in fact -- didn't mean to sound as if the comment was directed at you!

I need to get out of the box more often. I've collected so many textures that I never use. I was emailing Carol Leigh once (Google her -- she does some VERY cool work) about a lighthouse in her vicinity on the Oregon coast. I had checked it out at her recommendation and reported back that there were some great textues on a nearby dumpster! She understood.

And yes, we all learn so much here!! I love that, too!

[Ron Conlon]

I encourage you to continue to contribute to this forum as well. I like the different "voices" and like to see wonderful results achieved by different approaches. I think this photo exemplifies that diversity and success.

[Anita Bower]

I encourage you to continue to contribute to this forum as well. I like the different "voices" and like to see wonderful results achieved by different approaches. I think this photo exemplifies that diversity and success.
Thank you, Ron.

[Ron Conlon]

The results of stopping down this much could be seen as highly positive--lots of dof and less distracting detail due to some loss of sharpness, allowing the comp and color to shine. There is a coarseness in the macro-level view of some flowers (orchids come to mind, and although I haven't shot poinsettias, I believe they are similar) which one may want to suppress a little. A shallow dof shot is a different photo entirely.

[Anita Bower]

I was wondering if the problem with lack of focus on the anthers was the result of not focusing on them, but focusing a little further back. I intend to experiment with this and different f stops in the future as a result of this discussion.

[Diane Miller]

Anita, are you using a tripod? With macro, you can focus precisely on a desired spot, but if you are handholding and you inadvertently rock slightly back and forth while holding the shutter button down for a split-second (after focus is locked) you can move that object out of the focal plane and it will be soft.

It is also possible that the lens is not well-enough focus calibrated with the camera body. If you have Live View you can zoom in and focus by what you see on the back screen, and you are bypassing the focus sensor. Not always practical but its a good way to check autofocus accuracy.

[Steve Maxson]

Hi Anita. Well, I'm very late to the party and there has already been a lot of interesting discussion above. I like the colors and comp of your image as well as the overall sharpness - it took me a while to notice the slight softness in the center and I don't consider that a deal breaker. Perhaps a very minor adjustment in your focus point would have fixed that. Your contributions here in Macro are very welcome and appreciated and I hope you will continue to post more of your work in this forum! :S3:

[Anita Bower]

Anita, are you using a tripod? With macro, you can focus precisely on a desired spot, but if you are handholding and you inadvertently rock slightly back and forth while holding the shutter button down for a split-second (after focus is locked) you can move that object out of the focal plane and it will be soft.

It is also possible that the lens is not well-enough focus calibrated with the camera body. If you have Live View you can zoom in and focus by what you see on the back screen, and you are bypassing the focus sensor. Not always practical but its a good way to check autofocus accuracy.
I do and did use a tripod and live view. I suspect I was not focusing on the very tip of the stamens, but just a bit back.
Thanks for asking and giving your input.

[Anita Bower]

Hi Anita. Well, I'm very late to the party and there has already been a lot of interesting discussion above. I like the colors and comp of your image as well as the overall sharpness - it took me a while to notice the slight softness in the center and I don't consider that a deal breaker. Perhaps a very minor adjustment in your focus point would have fixed that. Your contributions here in Macro are very welcome and appreciated and I hope you will continue to post more of your work in this forum! :S3:
Thanks, Steve. Yes, I think a minor adjustment to my focus point would have corrected the problem. I intend to do some experimenting based on the discussion here. :-)

[Hazel Grant]

Not sure the "softness in images passes muster" in OOTB> Depends on the project. I've seen lots of comments on the softness of images. Then, again, OOTB allows for slots of post processing to develop from a perhaps "soft" image to a creative one. Glad you posted this image, Anita. I'm learning lots from the comments.