Flower 1

fccwpe · 03-22-2009, 12:19 PM

I took these in my front yard and messed a bit with the K20D's post processing stuff. Tell me how crappy they are or if you like them.
I looked at them after re-compressing and some of the quality the K20D provides is lacking due to the compression, but detail is not what Ia am after here.
I appreciate your critiques and will take any advice you have. THANKS!

Last edited by fccwpe; 04-14-2011 at 08:44 PM.

kevinschoenmakers · 03-22-2009, 03:17 PM

Could you post what aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc. you took these with? That would help enormously (for example, some of them seem moven, which might be due to your shutter speed not being high enough). Also, could you maybe post the unprocessed pictures?

fccwpe · 03-22-2009, 04:17 PM

Sorry, I forgot that they weren't attached to the photos.

info to follow:

#1 f5.6, ISO 200, 32,5mm focal length, 1/125, High contrast in post proc. Pentax DA SMC 18-55mm

#2 same as above, but softened in post proc.

#3 f5.6, ISO 200, 300mm, 1/200, Tamron LD Di 75-300mm

#4 f5.6, ISO 200, 300mm, 1/400, Tamron LD Di 75-300mm

#5 f7.1, ISO 100, 40mm, 1/250

#3-#5 have no post processing.

Thanks for taking a look. BTW I have been to Holland a number of times and find it to be one of the best places to find interesting things to photograph.

kevinschoenmakers · 03-23-2009, 04:57 AM

I'm not too fond of the effects of the first 2 photo's, the first one is a bit weird, and the softening doesn't really fit the subject (usually you'd want flowers to be as sharp as possible).

#3 And #4 seem either out of focus or unsharp due to movement. For #3, 1/200 when using a 300mm focal length is too long. Rule of thumb is to at least have the same number for the focal length and the shutter time when shooting pictures from the hand; so in this case at least 1/300.

#5 is very sharp and easily the best one, but the composition could be better. The grey background isn't very nice to look at, so perhabs crouch down and pick something green as your background, instead of the tiles. Also, try to place your subject away from the centre to improve the composition. This book has a good chapter on composition, as well as information how to set your ISO, shutter speed and aparture: Amazon.com: The Betterphoto Guide to Digital Photography (Amphoto Guide Series): Jim Miotke: Books

fccwpe · 03-23-2009, 07:39 AM

thanks kevin, I will take composition under closer scrutiny and watch the shutter speed more closely as well. Thanks again for the critique!

Urmas R. · 03-31-2009, 12:50 PM

I, on the other hand like the look of nr. 2. It looks great! If only there wouldn't be the wall behind the flowers, but forest or grass...

May I ask you, how did you soften it? Layers?

séamuis · 03-31-2009, 01:02 PM

looking at the EXIF, shutter speed is an issue on #3 but I think its mostly just misfocus. the first looks over sharpened, I don't care for the softening of the second one. and (taking compression into account) I just plain don't like the results from the tamron. (this isn't a composition thing, I just don't like what I see in regards to IQ).

fccwpe · 04-03-2009, 10:14 AM

Urmas,

Softening was done with the K20D in camera post processing.

BTW, I lived in Kiel for three years while in the US Navy. I was aboard FGS Luetjens (Austauschsoldat)

fccwpe · 04-03-2009, 10:16 AM

Seamus,

Yes, massively over sharpened, I just thought it looked kinda cool expressing the water drops and the bent blooms.

04-03-2009, 10:14 AM	#8
fccwpe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perris, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 380 Original Poster	Softening Urmas, Softening was done with the K20D in camera post processing. BTW, I lived in Kiel for three years while in the US Navy. I was aboard FGS Luetjens (Austauschsoldat) Last edited by fccwpe; 04-03-2009 at 10:20 AM.

04-03-2009, 10:16 AM	#9
fccwpe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perris, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 380 Original Poster	Over sharpened Seamus, Yes, massively over sharpened, I just thought it looked kinda cool expressing the water drops and the bent blooms.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature Fading spring flower, and purple flower.	the swede	Post Your Photos!	5	06-18-2010 03:05 AM
Nature Flower - First try	timstone	Photo Critique	5	06-04-2010 02:46 PM
Flower within a flower (macro)	heliphoto	Post Your Photos!	4	04-28-2009 01:03 PM
Flower question - Gary or other flower experts	Igilligan	Post Your Photos!	5	02-23-2009 12:18 AM
Flower	CagomoC	Post Your Photos!	4	05-24-2008 12:48 AM

03-22-2009, 12:19 PM	#1
fccwpe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perris, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 380	First submission for Critique, How bad are they? Camera: K20D ISO: --- I took these in my front yard and messed a bit with the K20D's post processing stuff. Tell me how crappy they are or if you like them. I looked at them after re-compressing and some of the quality the K20D provides is lacking due to the compression, but detail is not what Ia am after here. I appreciate your critiques and will take any advice you have. THANKS! Last edited by fccwpe; 04-14-2011 at 08:44 PM.

03-22-2009, 03:17 PM	#2
kevinschoenmakers Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Shanghai Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,509	Could you post what aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc. you took these with? That would help enormously (for example, some of them seem moven, which might be due to your shutter speed not being high enough). Also, could you maybe post the unprocessed pictures?

03-22-2009, 04:17 PM	#3
fccwpe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perris, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 380 Original Poster	Camera Settings Sorry, I forgot that they weren't attached to the photos. info to follow: #1 f5.6, ISO 200, 32,5mm focal length, 1/125, High contrast in post proc. Pentax DA SMC 18-55mm #2 same as above, but softened in post proc. #3 f5.6, ISO 200, 300mm, 1/200, Tamron LD Di 75-300mm #4 f5.6, ISO 200, 300mm, 1/400, Tamron LD Di 75-300mm #5 f7.1, ISO 100, 40mm, 1/250 #3-#5 have no post processing. Thanks for taking a look. BTW I have been to Holland a number of times and find it to be one of the best places to find interesting things to photograph.

03-23-2009, 04:57 AM	#4
kevinschoenmakers Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Shanghai Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,509	I'm not too fond of the effects of the first 2 photo's, the first one is a bit weird, and the softening doesn't really fit the subject (usually you'd want flowers to be as sharp as possible). #3 And #4 seem either out of focus or unsharp due to movement. For #3, 1/200 when using a 300mm focal length is too long. Rule of thumb is to at least have the same number for the focal length and the shutter time when shooting pictures from the hand; so in this case at least 1/300. #5 is very sharp and easily the best one, but the composition could be better. The grey background isn't very nice to look at, so perhabs crouch down and pick something green as your background, instead of the tiles. Also, try to place your subject away from the centre to improve the composition. This book has a good chapter on composition, as well as information how to set your ISO, shutter speed and aparture: Amazon.com: The Betterphoto Guide to Digital Photography (Amphoto Guide Series): Jim Miotke: Books

03-23-2009, 07:39 AM	#5
fccwpe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perris, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 380 Original Poster	Advice taken... thanks kevin, I will take composition under closer scrutiny and watch the shutter speed more closely as well. Thanks again for the critique!

03-31-2009, 12:50 PM	#6
Urmas R. Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Germany Posts: 179	I, on the other hand like the look of nr. 2. It looks great! If only there wouldn't be the wall behind the flowers, but forest or grass... May I ask you, how did you soften it? Layers?

03-31-2009, 01:02 PM	#7
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	looking at the EXIF, shutter speed is an issue on #3 but I think its mostly just misfocus. the first looks over sharpened, I don't care for the softening of the second one. and (taking compression into account) I just plain don't like the results from the tamron. (this isn't a composition thing, I just don't like what I see in regards to IQ).