Photographing flora | photos of flowers and plants



Rep: (242)
Flora

Attached Image


Flora - historically evolved collection of plant species, distributed in a specific area ( "Flora of Russia"), or in areas with certain conditions ( "Flora of wetlands") now or in the past geological epochs. In practice, the expression "Flora of the territory" is often understood not all the plants of a given territory, and only vascular plants (Tracheophyta) (ie, seed and ferns); Plants other groups usually considered separately because of the nature of collecting methods and definitions. Indoor plants, plants in greenhouses and other structures with artificial climate, not part of the flora.



Rep: (209)
Garbage every about buttercups-flowers ...
M
!


Post has been editedkochrob - 03.03.09, 01:42



Rep: (31)
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 =)
Attached Image

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.
Attached Image

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? =)

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



Rep: (96)
Attached Image

BombilCalabasov @ 08/28/07 11:33:07 PM
Zyabrev, by the way, your "Dahlia" is a very good illustration of the features of the macro shooting and shooting flowers in particular by means of digital-to-shoot cameras. Pay attention that the diaphragm seems to be fully revealed (according to EXIF, f / 3,2), but nevertheless, the background is very easy to read, which in this case is not very out of place. Shed in the background, of course, creates a kind of rustic atmosphere, but nevertheless, distracts from the flower. And it turns out that's because digital-soap-box allow you to make a macro shot (or more precisely, to take a close-up) only at wide-angle lens. Again, in the EXIF ​​DATA e-specified focal length 7,3mm, that is, even for the super-small matrices D-shoot cameras' super-wide-angle ". Due to such a short focal length and get this super-GRIP.

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



Rep: (96)
And we have such mushrooms in the forest ...
Attached Image


Added @ 27.08.2007, 20:46

Lenso ,
nea ... not dahlia



Rep: (96)
And still mushrooms on a hummock
Attached Image


Kochrob @ 08.27.07 22:18:51
And so the "Mask" is obtained
Attached Image

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



Rep: (1304)
Zyabra
Dahlia
Attached Image
It seems true? (:



Rep: (96)
And finally ...: daisy:
Attached Image


Added @ 27.08.2007, 21:17

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



Rep: (540)
And I fit into the topic? :)

Attached Image

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



Rep: (54)
Well, I'm celebrated

Attached Image



Rep: (371)
Attached Image

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



Rep: (96)
also. By the way, a mushroom ... well, like yin and yang and all that ...
Attached Image



Rep: (31)
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
Attached Image

BombilCalabasov @ 08/30/07 11:37:42
"Heavy" frame. Firstly, originally in the picture too offer large contrast: the right side of the cap are overexposed, and the left - fell into darkness. In principle, such a situation is a standard for shooting in nature, especially in the lower part of the forest, the trees roots. That in this case you can do? Option 1: Use additional light sources. It could even be a banal piece of white paper placed on the left of the field frame. He would give glow and "pulled" lights in the background. One could turn the flash on the camera, but this should be carefully, because at a short distance from the majority of devices Automatic mistaken, and the picture will be overexposed. Those. in this case it is necessary either to play with the flash output radiation, or take the same sheet of paper (tracing paper) and use it as a diffuser. Option 2 more complicated. The frame is removed with bracketing, and then in a special program (there seems to be running through such) images are combined into one, which already has the details from overexposure, and from the underexposed areas.

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



Rep: (18)
"dzinkalka" in the morning :)

Attached images
Attached Image



Rep: (12)
Attached Image



Rep: (0)
canon a95
not bad. Picture could be a little tweak in Photoshop (tighten the levels of color, which would make it a little more contrast in brighter). But the main question that bothers me, is not this ... exhibited minimally zoom position of the lens (7,81mm). Because of this, even at almost maximum aperture depth of field was very large and strong enough background "flickers", ie It interferes with the basic color of the image. It was possible on this unit to photograph the same flowers at a long focal length? Lily seems to be - not so small object ... Maybe worth it to do a little more than the "body"?


Attached images
Attached Image


Post has been editedkochrob - 07.10.07, 22:46



Rep: (7)
Also, in general, the flower ...

Attached Image


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 ...:
Attached Image


Well, here it is just possible to argue. What does "the right"? What are you, a colleague mean by that? To me, it just did not deliver. The fact that the whole ball of dandelion sharp left - not a plus. Because of this, it has turned out "flat", without any volume. But the diaphragm was opened "full hole" - f / 4 maximum of 4 opportunities. And GRIP was almost equal to the "plus or minus infinity". And why did this happen? Again, because of the extremely short focal length F = 5.41mm. Already on the next shot volume is transmitted much better because removed already at F = 85mm, although the diaphragm and 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.

, Well, I do not know ... I do not like. It turns solid meltishnya ... not, very small depth of field - is also a matter, I agree. That's why I wrote in the header of this theme that the DOF is actually the main artistic tool in macro photography. It is they who transmitted the volume and depth of the image. "Dances" I vylozhel just above, were removed many times almost full aperture range from 2.8 to 22. At 2.8 and 3.5 the depth of field turned out to be too small. In fact the picture was lost. On the diaphragms 8 and above - picture becomes flat, as ALL buds on the stem appeared in DOF field, and when the diaphragm 11 and higher still and the background read. 5.6 - I found the "sweet spot" because the idea was to show exactly how the inflorescence "obbegat" stem. In this case, the front flowers do not merge with the rear, it is important to ...

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



Rep: (7)
Attached Image



Rep: (0)
Attached Image

felics , appreciate, so not better?
Attached Image
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



Rep: (31)
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 ...
Attached Image



Rep: (8)
This cactus is about 4 meters tall!
Attached Image


Full version    

Help     rules

Time is now: 09/05/20, 7:29