Hello everyone, my name is Visuweel and I just joined this community :-)
I'm from the Netherlands and completely hooked on macro photography ( and photography in general ).
Since I just started taking pictures about 8 months ago I consider myself a semi-amateur.
I'm always looking for improvement, so honest critiques on the images I post here are always welcomed and appreciated :-)
Regards,
Visuweel ( aka Margo )
New member intro:-)
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
New member intro:-)
Looking and seeing are two entirely different things :-)
Welcome aboard Margo, a really colorful set of photos for a first post, very nice. Depth of field seems a bit shallow though but hey, stop down the aperature a bit and and diffuse the flash, you should be in business. We'll be looking for more and you've come to the right place, a really helpful group of talented people here.
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23603
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Thank you Ken for your kind welcome and tips, I've come to the right place so it seems
@ Cyclops : thank you :-)
@ Rik : first one :
SONY DSLR-A350, shutter speed: 1/2 second, F number: F/5.0, focal length: 90 mm, ISO speed: 400 ( auto ISO )
Second one :
SONY DSLR-A350, shutter speed: 1/20 second, F number: F/4.5, focal length: 75 mm, ISO speed: 400 ( auto ISO ).
Margo
( edit : forgot to mention a Raynox macro lens ).
@ Cyclops : thank you :-)
@ Rik : first one :
SONY DSLR-A350, shutter speed: 1/2 second, F number: F/5.0, focal length: 90 mm, ISO speed: 400 ( auto ISO )
Second one :
SONY DSLR-A350, shutter speed: 1/20 second, F number: F/4.5, focal length: 75 mm, ISO speed: 400 ( auto ISO ).
Margo
( edit : forgot to mention a Raynox macro lens ).
Looking and seeing are two entirely different things :-)
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23603
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Margo, thanks for the info. This helps a lot to understand what you're doing.
OK, now for critique...
I like the second image a lot. Attractive composition, good colors, focus well placed, good detail showing on both the anthers and stigma. (For anatomical terms about flowers, see HERE.) I don't see even a trace of motion blur, so I'm presuming you could increase the exposure time and still be OK. Stopping down the lens to say f/8 would give you about twice the DOF and probably make the details sharper. (Most lenses are sharper stopped down a bit, especially for macro.) Stopping down would also change the background appearance, which you might or might not like.
The first image seems washed out to me. Even the darkest shadows are not black, and there appears to be a magenta color cast over the whole picture. There is a strong shift of color from magenta to blue at that transition from darker foreground to that bright band at the top. I gather from your settings (f/5.0, ISO 400, 1/2 second) that the light was quite dim. Often dim light is also blue light, so there may be a color balance problem. Also I'm wondering if the lighting was mixed, like maybe the light that illuminated most of the flower was different color from the light that made that bright band across the back.
I don't know what effect you were going for with the first image. Perhaps what you have is exactly what you wanted. If not, and you still wanted to shoot with natural light, then perhaps it would have been improved by using custom white balance determined from a gray or white card. Or if you were mainly interested in the flower, not the lighting, then adding light would have helped in every area: shorter exposure, lower ISO, smaller aperture, more control over shadows and highlights.
I hope this is helpful. These photos show a lot of potential.
By the way, which Raynox lens(es) did you use for these? They make a couple of different sizes (magnifications).
--Rik
OK, now for critique...
I like the second image a lot. Attractive composition, good colors, focus well placed, good detail showing on both the anthers and stigma. (For anatomical terms about flowers, see HERE.) I don't see even a trace of motion blur, so I'm presuming you could increase the exposure time and still be OK. Stopping down the lens to say f/8 would give you about twice the DOF and probably make the details sharper. (Most lenses are sharper stopped down a bit, especially for macro.) Stopping down would also change the background appearance, which you might or might not like.
The first image seems washed out to me. Even the darkest shadows are not black, and there appears to be a magenta color cast over the whole picture. There is a strong shift of color from magenta to blue at that transition from darker foreground to that bright band at the top. I gather from your settings (f/5.0, ISO 400, 1/2 second) that the light was quite dim. Often dim light is also blue light, so there may be a color balance problem. Also I'm wondering if the lighting was mixed, like maybe the light that illuminated most of the flower was different color from the light that made that bright band across the back.
I don't know what effect you were going for with the first image. Perhaps what you have is exactly what you wanted. If not, and you still wanted to shoot with natural light, then perhaps it would have been improved by using custom white balance determined from a gray or white card. Or if you were mainly interested in the flower, not the lighting, then adding light would have helped in every area: shorter exposure, lower ISO, smaller aperture, more control over shadows and highlights.
I hope this is helpful. These photos show a lot of potential.
By the way, which Raynox lens(es) did you use for these? They make a couple of different sizes (magnifications).
--Rik