[Scootatheschool1990]

I have 3 un-photoshoped photos i would like to be critiqued. Tear them apart, with an explanation, technique, or tip to improve them.
Thanks in advance.

I had a hard time getting the bee in focus, any tips on this?
What are the best settings for low light with a k5 w/ Da*55 f/1.4?

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[smf]

I especially like photos 2 and 3.

All three photographs seem to be slightly tipped — as if the camera was tilted slightly, with the left part of the image a bit lower than the right.

Re photo 1:
I find the large circles distracting — also the light areas at lower right. You might want to tone down the bright areas atop the cap.

Re photo 2:
Although the image is good as presented, you might want to also try some cropping from the right or the left, bringing the bee away from the center. Another option might be cropping down from the top, creating a rather shallow image.

Re photo 3:
Might there be a bit more of the image at the left? Part of the rear flower is clipped off. And would you consider cloning out the small, dark spot on the foreground petal of the front flower?

Re getting the bee in focus: I have little experience with this, but I was photographing bees and another nectar-gathering insect last weekend. Next time, I plan to try prefocusing on an area and hoping the bee or insect will move into it. (I'll do that after I get a few frames in which I specifically focus on the insect, rather than waiting for it to move into the area.) Also, I see that your aperture was 4.5 at ISO400 and 1/800. Perhaps you can try a choice of ISO and shutter speed which will allow a smaller aperture (higher number, such as f8) and thus greater depth of focus (depth of field).

Best wishes, and I hope to see more of your photographs.

[top-quark]

My $0.02 worth:

No. 1: Quite like it, but if it's intended to show off the item being photographed (i.e. it's a "product shot") then more of it needs to be in focus - stop down a fair bit.

No. 2: I think you've missed focus everywhere. If the bee is the subject, then she needs to fill the frame more. The DA* 55 only has a max magnification around 1:6 and you want more, which would suggest a dedicated macro lens as being better for this sort of subject matter. Your zoom can manage 1:4 which may be sufficient with some cropping. Close focusing requires stopping down to get sufficient DOF. If you're at 1:3 magnification, say, then F5.6 might be a good starting point. Someone else may know a more considered rule of thumb for this. Things that won't keep still are tricky to nail. You can try prefocusing and waiting for the little bugger to come into frame. I've found when manually focusing that it may look good in the viewfinder, but that doesn't means that the end result looks good; stopping down further (F11, say, or F16) and using the DOF preview can help with the vagaries of manual focusing. A tripod and remote will help considerably but is a faff to set up.

No. 3: Very appealing but perhaps a tad underexposed? I would certainly lift the shadows in post.

It looks as though you used flash for no. 1 (although EXIF says "no"). Bug shots also benefit from flash, since you're going to be stopped down and you want to freeze motion. I use the popup flash with a little push-on diffuser from Interfit for macro photography. Works like a charm.

As for your question about low light settings for the DA* 55. Best setting for low light is generally a bit of bounced flash to make your available light problems go away. If that's (socially) unacceptable then use TAv mode and look for a max shutter speed of maybe 1/30 (less if you're trying to photograph fidgety kids). Set aperture to taste and let ISO go, more-or-less, where it wants to; you've got a K-5! Don't always use F1.4 just because you can: one eye in focus and the other not is generally not a good look!

[FowlerJphotos]

I agree, with the last post about the first picture. Although I do enjoy bokeh as much as the next guy. If it is intended to show off a product then step down a tad and get everything in focus. The other two pictures are good. I like #2 even though it does seem a tad out of focus in general. As said before a fill flash would be decent here. I understand that isn't always available though. Good shots though, thanks for sharing.

[HockeyDad]

I've only got a year under my belt so take my critique with a large grain of salt but here goes:

#1. I really like the overall shot. I like the angle of the subject and I don't find the bright areas in the background distracting. In fact, I think they add an additional sense of depth and magic to the shot. That said, I agree that stopping down some would get the entire subject in focus as well as likely add a little extra "pop" by sharpening the main body of the subject. Also, do I detect a little bit of motion blur? Was this handheld? If so, give it a shot with a tripod (real or makeshift... I've been known to balance my camera on a coffee cup).
[EDIT] Taking a second look, I think some touch-up on the selective color effect is needed on the left. [/EDIT]

#2. I don't have much experience at all with bugs but what I've managed to learn is that close is good and lots of light is needed. A dedicated fancy macro setup would be great but if you're on a budget, pick up a cheap set of extension tubes and use some diffused flash.

#3. Looking at your exif data, I have to assume this was not shot in broad daylight. I think that's what a shot like this needs... more light. The noise from the 3200 ISO is distracting as far as bokeh is concerned but maybe that can be smoothed out some(more) in post. I like the almost painting-like quality of the general softness in the image but I really think more light would go a long way.

[MSL]

Lots of good advice here already. From my limited experience and some recent flower shots - when I was shooting around 1:4 magnification I stopped down to 5.6 or more. When I shoot higher magnification - anything from 1:4 up to 1:1, I stop down anything from f8 or f11 to f16 depending on the lens and available lighting. When the lighting isn't there, I use a diffused flash (well the pop up flash covered with a handkerchief). For your last photo, you simply don't have enough light to make it work.

[Bruce Clark]

#2 really needs more depth of field. Assuming 0.5 metres distance with a 55mm lens at f4 you only have about 1 cm of good focus. Most of this focus is on the flowers not the bee. This is natural enough as the bee was probably not there when you first set up. If using auto focus, the camera would very likely not even react to the bee at all. Options are to manually focus on a point about one bee thick above the flowers and wait for the bee to arrive or increase depth of field by using a smaller aperture. Careful of shutter speed though or you will still have a fuzzy bee. Some diffused flash would certainly help as one of the other correspondents has already mentioned.

#3 is too dark and also has depth of field issues. Looking at the exif suggests that it was very very dark. (ISO 3200, shutter speed 1/100 at f1.4) You need some light on this subject. The aforementioned diffuse flash would help a lot. Realigning the camera so the sensor plane is parallel to the subject plane would also help in getting as much of the flowers as possible in focus.

[Scootatheschool1990]

So much advice, thank you so much I really have learned a lot. I took all your responses and will work on them
Here are a few responses back to you all.

I find the large circles distracting — also the light areas at lower right. You might want to tone down the bright areas atop the cap.

Yes, I find the lower right lights distracting, thanks for pointing that out.

Although the image is good as presented, you might want to also try some cropping from the right or the left, bringing the bee away from the center. Another option might be cropping down from the top, creating a rather shallow image.

Thank you for pointing that out. I am with you, it's a bit drab if it's DEAD CENTER. ha ha Thanks

Might there be a bit more of the image at the left? Part of the rear flower is clipped off. And would you consider cloning out the small, dark spot on the foreground petal of the front flower?

These images came straight from my camera. I do have photoshop however I want to stick to %100 natural photography.

suggest a dedicated macro lens as being better for this sort of subject matter

I think you're on to something. I just might have to get a macro lens. Would you have a recommendation for a particular lens?

I would certainly lift the shadows in post

bounced flash

I'm gathering that macro sometimes needs a flash. I have two flashes and considering making a macro flash

step down a tad and get everything in focus

Sweet, I think you're right about stepping down to get the whole object in focus. Now that I think about it, I don't really see any products photographed with a shallow DOF. Thank you!

It looks as though you used flash for no. 1

You are correct actually. Ifg to mention that. Not good that the camera didn't register that in Exif.

As for your question about low light settings for the DA* 55. Best setting for low light is generally a bit of bounced flash to make your available light problems go away. If that's (socially) unacceptable then use TAv mode and look for a max shutter speed of maybe 1/30 (less if you're trying to photograph fidgety kids). Set aperture to taste and let ISO go, more-or-less, where it wants to; you've got a K-5! Don't always use F1.4 just because you can: one eye in focus and the other not is generally not a good look!

So true, Thanks for your advice!

[Scootatheschool1990]

When the lighting isn't there, I use a diffused flash

Some diffused flash would certainly help

Alright! I'll try a flash next time, thank you!

[Scootatheschool1990]

Thank you everyone for your replies! I'll be posting another by next week.

[top-quark]

@Scootattheschool1990
The good thing about macro lenses is that there isn't a duff one to be had. All available options are good. I'll comment on the ones I own / have owned:

DFA 100 WR: this is the most luxurious of available options. It combines good build quality (metal barrel, lovely manual focus ring) with good reach; for macro photography this means a more comfortable working distance.

Tamron 90mm: absolutely nothing wrong with it. Didn't like the push / pull AF / MF ring but did like the focus limiter. Excellent build quality and quite the looker. I only sold it to help me get the above.

35mm Limited: delightful to use and and a superb general purpose normal prime. The short focal length means that 1:1 is very close to the subject.

Since getting the 100, I'm not using the 35 for close-up stuff. 30.3cm close focus vs. 13.9cm is a big difference.

You can get longer macro lenses than 100mm but they are really expensive. I've found that when it comes to macro photography, a longer focal length only affects working distance. I find the 100mm quite comfortable to use so I'm not inclined to spend 3x the amount on a 200mm lens.

Others will be able to comment on using extension tubes / reversing rings for >1:1 magnification. I have no experience of this so can't.

[Scootatheschool1990]

@top-quark Thank you. I'll look into it.

[devorama]

Something not yet mentioned. Check the histograms for the RGB channels on image 2. The Red and Blue channels are clipped. This means that the color information was lost for those. This leads to a loss of color detail in the clipped areas. This is why the bright magenta areas of the flowers lack detail. Well that and the soft focus. This cannot be corrected in post because the information is not present. That is, unless you shot this as RAW and can pull that detail back in from the RAW overhead. You can avoid this when shooting by checking your RGB histogram whenever you shoot objects that have bright, saturated colors.

[Scootatheschool1990]

@devorama thank you! I will strictly shoot in raw. I delete about 99% of my images after the day is through anyway. Not a problem with space.