Flower

[Raizels]

It's hard for me not to mess up the exposure w/ flowers. I liked the way this one looks though.

 

[Ron Evers]

That is a nice sharp shot but looks a little over saturated to me.

 

[creisinger]

Hmmm, my monitor must be wonky but I don't see sharpness. I actually thought it's a bit on the soft side.

Definitely too much saturation also white balance seems a tad off. The background has this bluish tint going on, doesn't look right.

Could be my monitor though. Did you use a gray card to get the proper white balance?

 

[Raizels]

Not sure what a gray card is
here is the image, straight out of my camera (except for cropping)

I'm not sure what I did wrong above, but this is what I started off with:

 

[Live_free]

Doesn't look sharp to me either..

 

[Raizels]

Is that the only thing that's lacking? 'cause I guess that' easy enough to correct.

 

[Live_free]

I also don't find it interesting, its like, yeah, a flower...

 

[Raizels]

I don't know how to respond to that - flowers are very interesting to me, I shoot them all the time, and I'm sure there are others out there like me...

I'm here to learn how to improve my photography and I appreciate any constructive comment. But I think yours was subjective.

 

[Live_free]

It was, you asked if there was anything else, photography as a median and very subjective, get used to it

Also I NEVER said I don't find flowers interesting I just went to a tulip festival and shot hundreds of photos, I love flowers. But your picture DOESN'T pop, sorry just looks boring and looks very point and shoot itish.

 

[Raizels]

When you put it that way I understand what you meant now, so I guess that is constructive. But I really am at the point-and-shoot stage. Which is why I'm glad I joined.

 

[LaFoto]

Well, to mind mind, the fact that you cropped this, and cropped it square like you did, with the flower being the centre, the petals radiating to all sides, shows me that you ARE thinking about what you are doing, and that you do want to give it some meaning. I can appreciate that! And it is a beautiful flower, there is no doubt about that.

Yes, the photo might be sharper, only don't I know if your camera CAN get it any sharper, for I assume you did let the camera autofocus on the centre of the flower? Maybe the photos you get SOOC do require a bit of sharpening in post? Not too much, things can easily be OVERdone, but a little. I feel the lacking sharpness is IN there.

Flowers are very pleasing first subjects for beginners, as they are very patient, they always "smile", they don't pull faces, don't run away, but many put flower photos away as "blah".

 

[Raizels]

Thanks for your thoughtful remark. Though I am getting a lot out of the critique I received and its affecting my photography already. I can see that the flower looks like an image from a catalog of flower seeds or something, not very artistic.

anyway, I went ahead and used unsarp mask, and here is the result:

 

[creisinger]

I think it's the diffused light that enhances the soft look.

Even after applying the unsharp mask I can't see it being sharp. A bit more directional light would have been great to bring out more detail in the petals etc.

Ahhhhhhhhh, look at the EXIF of the file:

KODAK Easyshare C613
F-stop: f/2.7
Exposure time: 1/550s
ISO: 80

OK taking this into consideration, you did well!

I had no idea you used a point and shoot for this one, hence the soft look. The small sensor and cheap optics won't give you a better focus, so it's not your fault.

And 1/550 sec exposure time is also not necessary for a flower, it's not moving that fast. Aperture should have been between 8 and 11 but unfortunately you can't change those settings in the camera.

 

[Raizels]

Is there any way for me to improve (other than buying a better camera, which I don't see myself doing anytime soon)?

 

[er111a]

its a neat shot, however soft on the edges and sorta boring, but good colors