A very close up macro of part of a Cyclamen flower.
105mm macro, tripod, Nikon D300, natural light, indoors, 4 sec., ISO 200, 4 sec., f51, ISO 200. Processed in Elements 10, cloned out spots, rotation and crop.
Ruffled Cyclamen Macro
A very close up macro of part of a Cyclamen flower.
105mm macro, tripod, Nikon D300, natural light, indoors, 4 sec., ISO 200, 4 sec., f51, ISO 200. Processed in Elements 10, cloned out spots, rotation and crop.
I like the subtle colours and I find the composition pleasing. For a few seconds my eyes roved around but they soon settled, I think somehow the darker pink area on the left bottom third acts as an anchor. I like the slightly soft appearance to the edges of the petals. I have a slight reservation over the top left corner, as you know I have minimal aesthetic/artistic capability but I cannot help but think the area "should be a little darker" to contain the image as it were?? What do you think?
Thanks for the comments, Jonathan. Here is a version with that UL corner darkened a bit.
Yes I think that is better, for want of a better description I feel the image is "contained".
Hi Anita, I think it'pleasant, good composition. But are you sure about aperture 51? so you wrote.Originally Posted by Anita Bower
My 105mm macro Sigma lens records f stops in a way that I don't understand. While the f stop on the barrel of the lens goes up to 32, sometimes the camera information gives me numbers like f51. I don't know what to do about it nor how to make sense of it nor how to convert it to something more reasonable. Any ideas?
Hi Anita. I like the comp and the abstract qualities of the image. There are just enough sharp areas to give my eye something to lock onto. I can't comment on the colors or brightness as I am in travel mode using a borrowed laptop - because mine died unexpectedly. This is very nicely done!
Nicely abstract. Pleasing to the eye at first look and as one looks deeper to sort things out one finds new perspectives. I think it is improved in the repost.
Thank you all for commenting and helping me improve my image. :-)
Just lovely! I do think the darkened corner is a nice touch. "Containing" is a good term, Jonathan.
Interesting quandary about the aperture. F/51 would give you a lot of diffraction, softening the image significantly. Are you controlling (and CAN you control) the aperture with the camera? Maybe the lens is not compatible with the camera...
Thanks, Diane. Glad you like it. I can control aperture. I just don't know how to explain the f stop numbers. Re. diffraction: I was very close when I took this image. Is there diffraction? Would it be something to be commented on if people didn't know what f stop I used? In macro photography, diffraction can be corrected using sharpening and similar filters. One uses high number f stops to get more in focus. Here is a video explaining it: https://tinylanscapes.wordpress.com/...top-numbers-3/
Your question should seed an interesting discussion. If we acknowledge that we are trading some resolution for depth-of-field at this aperture, why should there be such an insistence on staying below f/16? Orthodoxy? In this instance what would extra resolution (through stacking a series at more orthodox apertures, say) really yield? The impact of this photo depends on the color and form, not fine detail.
The fine detail that is blurred by diffraction at small apertures, vs added DOF, is certainly an artistic choice. So easy to shoot several and compare, as Anita said.
I'm on the road and haven't looked at the video but will. I'd be prepared to argue that sharpening is largely a myth -- only accomplished by adding artifacts. That might be something you can get away with in some cases, but it's easier to soften an image in post than sharpen it.
Well, I wrote a long reply and brushed a finger across some key on my laptop and it disappeared, not to be found again....
Short answer -- try different things and do whatever works for you. My favorite sharpening tool is Neat Image. The things he mentions in Nik are not sharpening features but more tone mapping or Clarity-like things. And, not that it matters to a final image, but his explanation of why diffraction occurs is oversimplified to the point of wrong. This is better:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...hotography.htm
Sorry -- not Neat Image -- it's Focus Magic. In too much of a hurry tonight.
I hate it when I accidentally delete something I've written. I agree--use what works. Thanks for your input.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
