[jadedrakerider]

Hello everybody. I'm gearing up to put some of my work on display for the very first time. I have to pay a bit of cash to get the space, so I wanted to run these photos past you guys. Should I take any of these out? Do you think these are good enough that people would want to put up on their walls? I'm envisioning a doctor's office or some such place. I have the original raws and I can get them blown up quite large.

I'd appreciate your input.

Watch the slide show

[Miguel]

Nice attempts, but I think that just about all of these are either seriously overexposed, or not sharp. In addition, selective desaturation is a cliched way to emphasize color. Do realize that for larger prints of closeups, the more scrutiny is placed on their technical excellence because you are inviting people's eyeballs to come closer.

Sorry for being straight with you, but that is the nature of critique.

M

[Na Horuk]

On the right track. But we see a lot of amazing flower photos on these forums, and even they usually struggle to make sales.
I would suggest you try working on focus and depth of field. Some of those photos have no part that is sharp (in focus and free of motion blur). Keep in mind that every lens has a certain minimum focus distance, so if the subject is too close, it cannot be sharp. Flower petals are also very bright and vibrant, so you usually want to underexpose (+/- button, or spot metering) and not overexpose. I think if you keep these things in mind, the quality of those flower photos will immediately increase. For example, the white rose is very blurry and I doubt anyone would pay for it.

[jadedrakerider]

Thanks Miguel,

I appreciate your feedback. I'd rather be overambitious on the internet rather than overambitious and out the money.

---------- Post added 10-02-2014 at 11:32 AM ----------

On the right track. But we see a lot of amazing flower photos on these forums, and even they usually struggle to make sales.

I would suggest you try working on focus and depth of field. Some of those photos have no part that is sharp (in focus and free of motion blur). Keep in mind that every lens has a certain minimum focus distance, so if the subject is too close, it cannot be sharp. Flower petals are also very bright and vibrant, so you usually want to underexpose (+/- button, or spot metering) and not overexpose. I think if you keep these things in mind, the quality of those flower photos will immediately increase. For example, the white rose is very blurry and I doubt anyone would pay for it.

Thanks for the tips. I think you're right. I'm going to hold off on this First Friday and try again.

[Na Horuk]

Focus is the most difficult thing, when I take flower photos I use manual focus and still end up with dozens of OoF photos (which I quickly delete). Achieving critical focus is important in this genre. Good luck, and have fun!

[BrianR]

Pretty flowers as a genre is very well saturated. There's not much room for things that look like accidental technical errors. Generic large prints of pretty flowers for wall decor can also be had for obscenely low prices at big box stores, so this may be pretty tough to turn a profit or even break even (especially on your first attempt). You are also probably not the first local flower photographer, have you looked around at shows like this to see what else is available and how your work stacks up or will hopefully stand out?

Not to be discouraging though.. preparing a bunch of prints for display is a great and also somewhat terrifying exercise! Are there any places near you that have free gallery space that would be less of a $$ commitment? For example, I have a couple of libraries near me that have free wall space for artists that change every couple of months, just to promote local artists (and decorate their own wall at the same time). There are also a couple of Artist's Co-Op's that feature guest space.

Lastly, have you tried printing any of these? It sounds like you were aiming for very large, but even 4x6's can give you an idea of how they'll look on paper. Printing a bunch of 8x12's and pinning them to your wall is also a good exercise, it can be tough to be honest with yourself though, but it's easier to evaluate them as a group if they're laid out on the wall instead of flipping through a slideshow.

Best of luck and keep at it

[Kerrowdown]

I'd appreciate your input.

Not wishing to be a kill joy, but all of these look a tad soft to me, are you using a dedicated macro lens for such work?

If you have a quick look at some of eaglems' work on the forum here for example, you'll see what I mean.

[jadedrakerider]

Achieving critical focus is important in this genre.

Yeah, I went and bought a ring flash which I would hope would stop the shake from the wind, but it isn't quite doing the job. Perhaps 180th a second isn't enough. However, I have been able to open up quite a bit more, and I've gotten some new stuff with much better depth of field.

Lastly, have you tried printing any of these? It sounds like you were aiming for very large, but even 4x6's can give you an idea of how they'll look on paper.

Oh yeah. I have the first photo of the slide show on my wall right now. 16x20. It looks a little pixelated, but I chalk it up to the film grain. But it looks great. I'm going to try having it printed again directly from the negative next time. This whole thing has been an exercise in nailing down workflow.

Not wishing to be a kill joy, but all of these look a tad soft to me, are you using a dedicated macro lens for such work?

No, I don't have a dedicated Macro lens. I'm using some extension tubes that I use with my fast-fifty and a 1:4 "macro" zoom lens right now. I actually have an auction right now for a dedicated Macro lens.

If you have a quick look at some of eaglems' work on the forum here for example, you'll see what I mean.

Oh yeah, I've seen his (or her) work on this forum quite a few times. He's such a show off. Blows me away every time.

[Na Horuk]

You know, some flower photographers do things like putting a wire around the stem of the flower, so it doesn't move as much in wind. And then spray some water on the flower to make it look like there is "dew" (water with added glycerin? some chemical that makes droplets bigger, forget what its called in English)
The other thing you can do is try Catch in Focus (aka focus trapping, there are some threads about it, as well as explanations in the camera manual) or Burst mode (take many photos, delete all but the best one).

[jadedrakerider]

... some flower photographers do things like putting a wire around the stem of the flower, so it doesn't move as much in wind. And then spray some water on the flower to make it look like there is "dew" (water with added glycerin? ...

Thanks for the tip. I was thinking about some of the things I could do. Just putting some weight on the stems would at least dampen the movement, even if it didn't stop it completely. With XMas coming up, I was thinking about putting some fishing sinkers on one of those XMas ball hooks and seeing if that would work. But a that's a good idea, too. Maybe some fishing line tied from the trunk of the plant to the stem.

Also, glycerin is the name of the chemical you are thinking of. I'll have to look into finding it.

[Na Horuk]

Well, there are so many things you could do, and things that the top notch pros do, to make their photos stand out from the crowd. I don't go to all these lenghts, but I also don't really make money from flower photos. Anyway, best of luck, hope you post some more when you continue the project