Confused Rhododendron - first 'real' macro - guidance appreciated!

[m8o]

Hi all, the monthly challenge was what I needed to get me out and take some shots of the Rhododendron bush that must have gotten confused from a short spat of mild air this October, and decided to try to flower. A few started, but only one wasn't totally 'freezer burned'.

So I'm hoping for some C&Cs of these, and guidance as to which I should enter in the contest, as my eyes aren't very 'artistically inclined' [edit: mis-typed aren't and had 'are', which is certainly not the case and changes the whole meaning!]. I certainly am not fooling myself to think I'd win or even be in the running. I'm just hoping not to embarrass myself.

I used a monopod. As I don't have a ball head or gimbel, when I needed portrait, I just detached the camera from it and used the monopod as a platform.

All the shots are here: Rhododendron confusion (Macro) album | m8o | Fotki.com
and full rez are available there too.

Some excerpts...

These first few were my first with flash, close at or near 1:1. A -LOT- more DOF with the flash. I wasn't ready for that and to tell you the truth, I have no idea why. I'm not mistaken to think these are too "harsh", even "clinical" looking, as if they were a "laboratory shot" to something scientific...? Not contenders IMO. Am I right in that belief?

#1


#2


#3


This next set did not use the flash, shot between 1:1.5 and 1:2. Rather then flash, I juggled one of those huge yellow 1million candle power handheld flashlights (no kidding) you buy @ HomeDepot/Lowes (which was low on battery power, so wasn't putting out a lot, and would often drain to a dim glow), using either the main light or the small halogen on the bottom. It required some serious WB adjustment in Lightroom (shot in RAW) between 2950 - 3200 K, but I think I like it better then the flash shots.

Here are a few of what I think to be the best of them. The landscape shots were ISO1000, and portrait shots around ISO320-400'ish. I also used f/9 on the landscape ones to try to get some DOF. First couple of portrait shots were f/3.2, then the rest were f/5.4.

C&Cs welcome to the betterment of my technique et al. Any worth posting in the challenge you think?

#4


Difference in BG in the pic below and above from the different type and amount of the handheld incandescent light I shined onto my subject, then the type of WB adjustment I applied to the foreground ... thus 'color shifting' the BG of the above shot as it wasn't lit by my handheld light.

#5



#6


#7


#8


#9


Working with the originals and full rez, I had originally though #9. But now in this smaller, sharpened and noise reduced JPEG version, dunno ... maybe #6 is the keeper? ....or #8 or #9? ...something to be said for #7 too!
< big grin! >

Thanx much for your time looking and [maybe? ] reading and offering your thoughts,
-steve

[J.Scott]

Interesting experiment Steve and here are my thoughts. I may be harsh but I will stay focused on trying to be constructive.

The first 2 shots are out, in my opinion, as the stamen (or what ever that 'thingy' is called) seems to be suffering from E.D. That bend in the middle makes it look a bit weak and the petals look droopy. Plus, throughout the whole shoot those stringy cobwebs make it look unclean. It would be okay if you wanted to take a picture of the spider (or whatever insect made the strings) and the flower, but by themselves they distract from the flower. The 3rd shot just has too much out of focus to be likable.

In the next lot I like #6 for the way the flower is portrayed and #8 or #9 for the background (minus the obvious, almost-in-focus green leaf.) On #8 and #9 the pink of the petal looks kind of weird the way it looks on top of the edge of the leaf. I definitely like the combination of the blue and green background as opposed to shades of green only.

Overall, the subject may be problematic. It looks to be a rather, large round bud and that makes it difficult to get all of it in focus without getting too much background in focus too.

[m8o]

Hey J. Not harsh in the least. Exactly what I was looking for and I thank you for your time in considering the photos and offering your insight. It answers and/or reinforces things I was wondering and/or also thinking. I didn't want to make note of all of it as the post was long enough already. I think I may go with #6 in the end as it has the least 'wrong' with it.

#6 has some of the best sharpness, focusing more on the bulb and petals and less on the stamen (I had no idea what it was called, thanx). The black 'spikes' at the edge of a green bulb leaf is very sharp in full rez.

Interestingly, it's the shot that wasn't taken without any flash or artificial light shining on the bulb, which is the reason for the BG remaining the same tone. As it didn't lower ISO much, in retrospect I don't think I really needed the "spotlight". I therefore didn't have to artificially WB shift the subject to bring the color back where it belongs.

It also [edit] isn't hit as badly with that foreground leaf confusion on the bottom right of the petals, not as much... (I wanted that leaf there hoping it would add a nice effect to the image ... I see now what I missed seeing). It does however have that OOF blob in the lower left of a very foreground leaf... I don't really can't crop it out tho where it's situated.

Not 100% tho ... still considering submitting about #8 and #9. Or, if the leaf isn't a whited mess by the weekend, I may just reshoot it! (or find another subject)

Thanx again.

edit: p.s. to tell you the truth, my eyes didn't even see the spider webs all over it until I saw the pictures on the computer ... as my camera's screen is broke, I can't pre-view ; just like shooting film!

[foxglove]

I think the problem is with your subject - there's nothing particularly special about it, aside from being a confused rhododendron! The background is nicely undistracting, and I think you're right, the natural light one is the best of the lot, but it still lacks, for want of a better word, a point.

What lens are you using? If it allows, maybe you could get in really tight and focus just on the overlapping "scales" of the bud. And if it's totally freezer-burned by now, maybe that would actually make a more interesting photograph. I've no idea, I'm just free associating here! Thinking about the macros I've most enjoyed, I'd say they all have either a really interesting subject, or are so macro I'm not sure what the subject is, it's become just a really interesting pattern. They all have wonderful light. In some cases, the balance of the negative space is almost as important as the subject. Hm, now I'm going to have to go back and evaluate all my macros with those criteria in mind!

Good luck, I'm curious to see what you come up with next!

Julie

[m8o]

You've got a point there Julie ; now that you say that, what comes to mind is my equivalent to a "high school yearbook picture" of a confused rhododendron...

#2 is the closest I can get, 1:1 macro with the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5. I wub that lens. I see your point however with how 'repositioning' what I have in frame and the direction I pointed, how I could definitely have been more creative. ...perfect example of how I'm a left lobe'd techie, not a right lobe'd artist!

thanx!

p.s. I just noticed a bad typo in the original post ... I wrote "as my eyes are very 'artistically inclined'. " ... WOE! I meant to write "as my eyes aren't very 'artistically inclined'. " !!!

[m8o]

Well I decided to give it one more go the other day. Needless to say I'm giving up on this subject as the basis for my macro submission.

This flower was an even smaller one -- the spikes on the ends of the green leaves of the bulb were only beginning to develop -- allowing me to get to 1:1 macro and fit it all. But alas, still makes for a pretty 'boring' picture, so this is the last of'm.



I decided I'm going to focus on the tiny leaves of Sedum 'Herbstfreude' aka Autumn Joy Stonecrop. Hoping you will go to a different thread i'm going to make on them , and offer your thought on which is the most compelling. -thnx-

[Ole]

#6 and #8, and then this last one are the best. Your technique is great. I must agree with Julie, however, that this 'confused' rhododendron isn't a particularly pretty and cooperative subject. It provides no nice curves, angels, or shadows. It's just - crumbled and confused!