[X]Assistant

[FranticKernel]

Flora

Flora- the historically established set of plant species distributed in a specific territory (“flora of Russia”) or in a territory with certain conditions (“flora of swamps”) at the present time or in past geological epochs. In practice, the expression “Flora of the territory” is often understood not by all the plants of a given territory, but only by vascular plants (Tracheophyta) (that is, seed and fern-like plants); plants of other groups, as a rule, are considered separately due to the peculiarities of the method of collection and determination. Houseplants, plants in greenhouses and other structures with an artificial climate are not part of the flora.

[BombilCalabasov]

Garbage every about buttercups-flowers ...

M

!

Post has been editedkochrob - 03.03.09, 01:42

[Flesh [zlo]]

BombilCalabasov, wonderful photo! just a class, by the way, something reminded me of a centipede =) beauty!
I also chtol lit up ...
Red rose on the background of yellow flowers =)

b] Flesh [ZLO] [/ b], not a bad idea, only, IMHO, the implementation is a bit disappointing ... IMHO again. That’s how I’d cook: a slightly tougher framing, so that the flower itself takes more attention to itself + slightly corrected Levels and brightness.

Flesh [ZLO] 08/28/07 11:27:02

very beautiful! about framing ... I wanted to, but I was scared for some reason =)))

Off And how to make such a frame? And another question, why is the copyright icon and not copyright? =)

[email protected] 11:50:16

What are they afraid of? It does not bite! No, this is just one of the basic laws of the visual arts - in the frame (in the image), the less extra details, the better! Those. if there is extra space in the frame, it is better to remove it.

I do a frame like this:
I fully prepare the picture: resize, levels, sharpe.
Ctrl + a ->Ctrl + c (image is copied to clipboard)
Ctrl + n (new file with the size of the image in the buffer) ->Ctrl + v (insert image)
Image Size with an increase in the size of points by 20 in width and length
Filr BlurMore many times. Then Image ->Ajusments ->Brightness and a little bit lighter.
Once again, Ctrl + v - paste the image again.
Save JPEG.
В® is a sign of a registered name. Those. that this product name, the company already belongs to someone. Similarly, в„ў is a registered trademark. Because I have not officially registered a name anywhere (only on the forum except perhaps) or an image, I see no reason to use such signs. But (c) is a sign that this image is copied with the rights of the copyright holder, i.e. my ...

Post has been editedkochrob - 07.10.07, 23:11

[Zyabra]

BombilCalabasov @ 08/28/07 11:33:07 PM

Zyabra, by the way, your "Dahlia" is a very good illustration of the features of macro shooting and shooting flowers in particular with the help of digital soap-boxes. Notice that the diaphragm seems to be fully opened (according to EXIF, f / 3,2), but nevertheless, the background reads very well, which is not very appropriate in this case. The shed in the background, of course, creates a kind of village atmosphere, but nevertheless distracts from the flower itself. And it turns out this because the digital-soap trays allow you to do macro shooting (more precisely, shooting at close range) only at a wide angle of the lens. Again, in the EXIF, the focal length of 7.3 mm is indicated, which is even for super-small matrices of digital soap boxes a “super wide angle”. Because of such a short focal length, such a super-GRIP is obtained.

Do not take it as criticism. I just want to draw attention to some important points and details, which form the impression of the "professionalism" of the image.

Post has been editedkochrob - 07.10.07, 23:09

[Zyabra]

And we have such mushrooms in the forest ...


Added @ 27.08.2007, 20:46

Lenso,
nea ... not dahlia

[Zyabra]

And still mushrooms on a hummock

Kochrob @ 08.27.07 22:18:51

And so the "Mask" is obtained

BombilCalabasov @ 08/28/07 11:05:38

good photos. I especially liked the first mushroom. This is a terrible one ... But the second mushrooms obviously didn’t have enough light and technology ... the diaphragm 2.8 kept the depth of field to a minimum, and the 1/10 shutter speed led to a banal “jerk”. Sorry. It would be necessary to attach the device at least on a small tripod and tighten the diaphragm somewhere up to 8-ki. Then all these colored droplets would come out very abruptly and give just the desired effect of amber beads ... "Yin and Yang" - fun noticed.

Post has been editedkochrob - 07.10.07, 23:01

[Lenso]

Zyabra
Dahlia

It seems true? (:

[Zyabra]

And finally ...: daisy:


Added @ 27.08.2007, 21:17

Lenso,
okay, persuaded ...: -P let it be dahlia 8)

[Malval]

And I fit into the topic? :)

BombilCalabasov @ 08/28/07 11:05:38

The first flower (lily?) did not get into sharpness. I tend to take such photos as marriage.

Post has been editedkochrob - 07.10.07, 23:03

[NikDV]

Well, I'm celebrated

[2d0x]

BombilCalabasov @ 08/28/07 11:05:38

If the built-in flash allows you to adjust the radiation power - you had to use this function. If not, turn it off altogether.

Post has been editedkochrob - 07.10.07, 23:04

[Zyabra]

also. By the way, a mushroom ... well, like yin and yang and all that ...

[Flesh [zlo]]

BombilCalabasov, father took a picture of a mushroom ... He asks you about constructive criticism and, if possible, for the photos in Photoshop. If it's not difficult for you, help us in this matter.

Mushroom

BombilCalabasov @ 08/30/07 11:37:42

"heavy" frame. First, the contrast was initially too large: the right side of the cap was overexposed, and the left side fell into darkness. In principle, this situation is standard for shooting in nature, especially in the lower part of the forest, at the roots of trees. What can be done in this case? Option 1: use additional light sources. It could even be a banal piece of white paper placed behind the frame field on the left. He would give a reflection and “pull” the lighting in the shade. It would be possible to turn on the flash on the camera, but care is needed here, because at close range most automatic equipment makes mistakes, and the picture is overexposed. Those. in this case, you must either play with the flash radiation power, or take the same piece of paper (tracing paper) and use it as a diffuser. Option 2, more complicated. The frame is shot with bracketing, then in a special program (it seems that they ran here), the frames are combined into one, in which there are already parts from overexposure and from under-identified zones.

Secondly, the point of shooting was selected extremely not successfully. By itself, the mushroom turned out not interesting and turned out to be stuck to the background. We had to "bow" to him, i.e. place the machine at the level of a mushroom or even at the level of the ground (as Zabra did when shooting her first mushroom). A special macro lens, of course, would be an ideal solution in this case, since would allow to play with depth of field, but since it is not there, then it is necessary to look for other solutions ...

The problem is in the content part of the picture: it is in itself quite dull and static. Any bright leaf or a snail on a hat could save the frame ... something that attracts attention and what could be accentuated. A sparkling droplet on the edge of the cap ... well, at least something ...

Photoshop here is almost no help ... If only to try to separate the background and artificially blur it. Well, another frame to translate into a vertical format, cutting off the extra empty space left and right.

BombilCalabasov @ 08/30/07 14:19:53

In, almost exact illustration of my words arrived in time!http://www.photosight.ru/photo/2274185/?ref=section&refid=5

Post has been editedkochrob - 07.10.07, 23:16

[vvs66]

"dzinkalka" in the morning :)

Attached images

[seff]

[dtarasov]

canon a95

[email protected] 17:57:31

not bad. The picture could be slightly corrected in Photoshop (tighten the color levels to make it a bit more contrast, brighter). But the main question that confuses me is not this ... The minimal zoom position for the lens is set (7.81mm). Because of this, even with the diaphragm almost as open as possible, the depth of field turned out to be very large and the background is quite “flickering”, i.e. interferes with the main color image. Could we take the same flowers on this device at a longer focal length? It seems to be Lilies - not such a small object ... Maybe it was worth making a little more than the "Tele"?

Attached images

Post has been editedkochrob - 07.10.07, 22:46

[Welk]

Also, in general, the flower ...



too much proof that a soap dish does a good job with macro, more precisely, it's just easier for them to cope ... pity that Jpeg devoured it completely during compression ...


Added @ 05.09.2007, 20:37

And these are already real flowers, but I don’t know the names ...:

[email protected] 21:14:26

Well, here it is just possible to argue. What does "handle" mean? What do you, a colleague, mean by this? For me, since it just failed. The fact that the whole dandelion ball came out sharp is not a plus. Because of this, it turned out to be "flat", without volume. But the diaphragm was open "to the fullest hole" - f / 4 of 4 is the maximum possible. Still, the DOF turned out to be almost a plus-minus infinity. And why did this happen? Again because of the extremely short focal length F = 5.41mm. Already in the next snapshot, the volume is transferred much better, because shot at F = 85mm, although the aperture is f / 4.5

Welk @ 09/05/07 9:28:45

Well, the whole dandelion and had to get into sharpness. To be honest, I don’t really like when, due to a small depth of field, a part of the flower is in focus, a part is blurred. About this and that, because of the small size of the soap box, the GRIP matrix is ​​always large and there is no need to clamp the diaphragm in order to place the entire object into focus. Here for portraits, where a small GRIP is very much needed, soap boxes are not suitable at all, but for macro it is just fine. By the way, the bottom shot is cropped from the whole frame, the colors were much larger, and the zone of sharpness is already.

[email protected] 10:05:31

Well, I do not know ... I do not like it. It turns out a continuous meltishnya ... No, a very small GRIP is also a misfortune, I agree. That's why I wrote in the cap of this topic, that the depth of field is actually the main artistic tool in macro photography. It is they who are transferred the volume and depth of the image. The dances, which I laid out a little higher, were removed many times with practically the full range of diaphragms from 2.8 to 22. At 2.8 and 3.5, the depth of field was too small. Indeed the picture was lost. On diaphragms 8 and higher - the picture became flat, because ALL the inflorescences on the stem turned out to be in the field of the DOF, and with a diaphragm of 11 or higher, the background was also read. 5.6 - it seemed to me the "golden mean", because the idea was to show exactly how the inflorescences "run around" the stem. In this case, the front flowers do not merge with the rear, which is important ...

Welk @ 09/05/07 10:37:10

Well, I will not argue and prove that the soap box removes better 
Naturally, only one depth of field can be transferred.
It would be more correct to say this: for beginners, it is easier to remove a soap dish than a mirror.
In the sense that obtaining an acceptable result is achieved with less effort or without effort at all 
Okay, what's the theory here to plant now find another flower

Post has been editedkochrob - 07.10.07, 22:50

[Welk]

[felics]

felics, appreciate, so not better?

1. The entire composition of the frame has to the classic "square". The extra elements on the left and right only distract attention.
2. After reducing the size of the picture, the sharpness is lost. Is always. To do this, one of the ways to add Sharp. Either by a simple filter of the same name, or by the method that I set out in the "Exchange of experience", and which I have applied now.
3. Levels in color channels pulled up. Now the flower is brighter, and the specks on the wings began to play with flashlights ...
IMHO, no claim to the truth ... You may not like it ...

Post has been editedkochrob - 07.10.07, 22:53

[Flesh [zlo]]

Vot kakus =) by the way, is also an illustration of the influence of Grip =) the flowers are clear ... and everything else is the way I wanted ... It’s a pity that the flowers are boring ...

[R. Mihalych]

This cactus is about 4 meters tall!