What makes a really good flower close-up/macro, as opposed to the run-of-the-mill flower picture. Is it sharpness? Is it DOF? Is it lighting? Is it color? Is it shape?

There are several photographers here who do very well with Flower Macros. What do you look for or what do you see?

Do you post process extensively and massage the original into a good shot?

Please, share your secrets,

Ed

[navcom]

I'm not a flower photographer but for me what makes a great flower picture is brilliant sharp color in the plant itself and very narrow DOF that draws your attention to the flower details.

[JrPentax]

the melbourne flower show is...
next weekend i think....

ok - so not quite but it is very soon...
Melbourne International Flower Show
Wed 2nd April – Sun 6 th April, 2008

[TaoMaas]

The best advice I could give you is that flower shots are like miniature portraits. That means there are no hard rules regarding lighting, depth of field, hard or soft focus, background, etc...

[Kim]

There are all kinds of wonderful flower shots, but personally I go for colors, shapes and often general softness of the image. Not necessarily in that order though.

I'm no expert, but you can see a few of my flower images here: Kim Mervasto Photography

When I'm looking for flowers to shoot I first try to find the perfect flower. No holes or dry leaves etc. When I find a good sample I look at the flower from different angles and try to find some sort of interesting shape or feature worth photographing. I also pay attention to the background, but it's usually not a problem because of the shallow dof.

What I'd like to shoot, but havent found a good scene yet, is a lonely colorful flower in a monotonous landscape. Something like a flower in desert for example. This kind of flower images hit me the hardest, but it might be more landscape photography than flower photography, tho.

[drabina]

Good photo is the one that appeals to the person who is looking at it. Composition, lighting, exposure, are just tools but I do not thing there are rules set in stone for flower photography. Sometimes overexposing or tilting the horizon helps to achieve better picture. Sometimes the same thing just kills the picture.

Just play with the settings and composition and look at the final result to determine what works for you.

[ckaz]

I'm also not in expert in taking shots of flowers, but I do like shallow dof. Here's some I've taken:

Flickr: Photos from technoaz

Just go out and start taking shots. You'll learn quick.

CK

[NaClH2O]

Ed you like to ask the easy ones don't you? First of all I'd say that a flower macro is different than a flower close up.
Close ups: Like someone said above a close up is like a portrait. Make me see WHY you clicked the shutter. It can be any number of things, elegant shape, interesting interplay of light and shadow, dramatic color, beautiful back lighting, juxtaposition of different colors. What made you want to take the photo? Maybe there is one flower sticking above a bunch of others of the same kind, isolate it by using a narrow DOF so it really STICKS OUT. Maybe you've got two very different flowers close together, use a wide DOF to SHOW THE CONTRASTING SHAPE/COLOR. Sometimes I like to walk around a flower if I can to see how the light hits it from a different angle, a ho-hum flower in direct light might make a great shot if it's backlit and vice versa. Like this shot, nice pretty little blue flower but seen from the front, and directly lit, kinda ho hum, but from behind and backlit a much better photograph


Also pay attention to shape, some of the larger flowers have distinctly different shapes in profile vs head on. This lily would have made a nice shot head on, but it's much more effective in profile, just because of the shape. BTW this shot would have been a lot better if I had narrowed the DOF down, but I was just starting out with flower photography at the time, I would do it differently now.


If I can get someone else to see what I saw, what made me want to take the shot this particular way, then I feel I've made a good photograph.

I approach flower macros differently. For me, a flower macro is about DOF. What did I leave in focus and what did I leave out of focus. Many times I have no idea what exactly I will see when I focus closely. Remember the Flower Macro monthly challenge? I just loved the shot that looked like a wizard in a cowl with his nose sticking out. I personally doubt the photographer saw that before they looked thru the viewfinder, but the super thin DOF bought it out. In this shot I was planning on focusing in on the opening of the bud with all the little pink threads curled up in there. But the exterior proved to be more interesting to me with the sharp needle like thorns and the spider web like covering underneath them.


What I'm saying is keep an open mind when doing macros and vary your focus a bit, you might be surprised at what you see.

I've got literally hundreds and hundreds of flower shots here:saltwater's photos- powered by SmugMug
Some are better than others, but it might give you some ideas.

NaCl(hope that helps)H2O

[Tom M]

I don't know - Are any of mine good? thomas maher photography - Flower

Best viewed with FireFox or Safari - IE does not like my page sit seems - it gives the images jaggies.

Ed you like to ask the easy ones don't you?

NaCl(hope that helps)H2O

Peter

I never had a problem asking the tough questions. I just have a problem with what to do with all of the good answers I get.


Tom M.

Your Close Ups are very nice. Hope mine will soon turn out that well.

[Buddha Jones]

I thnk a good flower shot should be based on the same elements that make a good shot in general. Composition, lighting, color and focus. Focus does not always mean sharpness either.

[NaClH2O]

I thnk a good flower shot should be based on the same elements that make a good shot in general. Composition, lighting, color and focus. Focus does not always mean sharpness either.

Buddha, I have to agree completely. A flower photograph is still a photograph. If it's a good photograph it's a good flower photograph. When I first read Ed's post my first response was "attention to detail" And that means both the technical stuff; aperture, iso, shutter speed and the like. And the non techincal stuff like color, shape, light, shadow. And the stuff that's kinda middle ground like framing, distance, angle etc.

NaCl(thanks for point that out)H2O

[NaClH2O]

Tom M: I really like many of those images. The Canna with the little white insects(?) flying around it, the backlit cactus with the 'suggestive' shape, and the first Fuscia (red dangles) are really really good. I especially like how you framed that cactus shot with the edge of backlit leaves along the left side. Good work

NaCl(yep, I like flowers )H2O

[Donald]

in my opinion every flower photograph that could be taken has already been taken by better photographers. After people, portraits and candids, flowers in every guise, composition, colour scheme, macro, still life, etc., have already been taken and they are all on the web for us to review. Yet still we are captivated by each flower, the colours and petals...

What I think are some reasonably creative, unique, and enjoyable flower photographs:

Ultra closeups, almost making a jungle of the petals, monochromatic or otherwise analagous tints. There is a person on pbase who posts lots of these in whites-greens-turquoises, often in a collage of 10 or 16 shots.

Scanner photography images, incredibly sharp, ultra rich colours popping from solid black or white backgrounds. This method eliminates what I think is the bane of 99.99% of nature flower shots: distracting background.

Some photographers have captured nice flower images creating still life compositions mimicing the Romance painters style (Rembrandt, et al.) mixing live and dead flowers in their shots, although the symbolism from 400 years ago is a bit lost.

Very difficult is black and white flowers: flowers are essentially about pure colour, therefore to take colour away seems counterintuitive. It can be beautifully done, successful ones are always super-minimal compositions.

Dare I say it, sorry, no really sorry, my multiple-multiple exposures, although I'm copying other photographer I saw 20+ years ago in magazine.

Please do not:
-soft focus effect (greeting cards, blechh!)
-glistening water drops (billions and billions of examples)
-strip in a loved ones face into flower center (1970's)

[Bramela]

I am very much a Flower Shot Macro enthusiast.
I have hundreds and my approach has always centred around, sharpness, brightcoulour, and most importantly non obtrusive background.Some I take at night,use flash, or so position, where possible because it gives a really great backround to highlioght the flower. I also try and fill the frame fairly well, or crop to most effect.
Here are are a couple, quickly chosen, which may give some idea.