Nature shots C&C

[sm4him]

I didn't post these in the Beginner's Forum because I'm not really a beginner--just new to DSLR...and my photos are probably beginner quality, even though I've been doing this for over 30 years.

Anyway...some background. I'm not looking to be a "professional" but I would like to improve my skills enough to maybe sell a few pieces here and there, eventually. No rush, though.
Right now, what I am really concentrating on is learning more about how to use whatever light resources I have to their best advantage, and improving my focus skills.
I have a Nikon D5100, just the basic 18-55mm kit lens, and nothing else. No flash, except the one on the camera. I do a lot of outdoor photography, so I just want to learn how to use the available light, and my fill flash to better advantage than what I've been doing. Eventually, when I can afford it, I'll get another flash.

Focus is whole 'nother matter. Here's the deal--I have poor vision, including lots and lots of "floaters" in my vision. It makes it VERY difficult to tell whether my focus is right. I can't see it in the camera, and sometimes still can't really tell for sure on the computer. So, I need to figure out how OTHER people are seeing my photos, focus-wise, compared to how *I* see them, so hopefully I can figure out how to compensate for the natural "soft focus" I tend to see.

Is that all clear as mud??
What I'd like most of all from C&C is--how is the focus? how is the lighting? What, specifically, should be done to improve these types of photos (especially in terms of lighting). Any other C&C is welcome as well.

1. UT Trial Gardens flower: f8, 1/500 sec, ISO 100, 52mm focal length, no flash, taken about noon on bright, sunny day

DSC_0475edit with cr by sm4him, on Flickr

2. UT Trial Garden, flower 2--f6.3, 1/200 sec, ISO 100, 52mm focal length, flash, taken about noon on bright, sunny day

DSC_0482 by sm4him, on Flickr

3. Little frog--Ijams Nature Center--f5.6, 1/80, ISO 400, 55mm focal length, no flash, taken about 6 p.m. on a sunny day

IjamsFrog_0312 by sm4him, on Flickr

Oh...I should also mention: most of these have very little post, because that's something else I really need to work on learning more about. I did attempt to sharpen the frog, but again, with my vision, I just can't tell if I'm overdoing it or not.

 

[sm4him]

Anything? I know these are not great shots or anything, but any help about how to improve them, either the next time I shoot something similiar, or in post-production, would be helpful!

 

[sm4him]

one more bump, then I'll give up on it.

 

[bazooka]

Posts tend to drop off the 'active posts' page pretty quickly here. Unfortunately sometimes bumping is necessary.

Your focus is spot on. Does your camera have an adjustable diopter on the viewfinder? That may help.

To me flower shots like this are usually pretty boring, but I really like the colors and comp on #1. #2 is overexposing on the red channel as you can see there are relatively large areas of the flower that are a single tone of red. You could deasturate the red channel slightly, lower the exposure slightly, use the recovery tool if shooting RAW, adjust white balance slightly if shooting RAW.... shooting RAW is going to give you a LOT of options to help correct exposure issues if you don't already shoot and edit in RAW. Also, RAW editing, in my opinion, is easier than photoshop editing.

I think #3 is the most creative of the group..... a very tight monotone color pallette, really cool and sleak lines. The only thing I'd complain about is how the background has sharp edges in it, compared the background in #1. This is, I believe, referred to as 'confused' bokeh and is a quality of the lens. Your lens is capable of nicer bokeh as demonstrated in #1 though. #1 has an aperture of f/8, #3 is f/5.6 which is probably wide open. Perhaps you could stop down a bit to improve this.

 

[sm4him]

Posts tend to drop off the 'active posts' page pretty quickly here. Unfortunately sometimes bumping is necessary.

Yeah, I know. I'm just not very patient. Plus, it's had plenty of views, just not replies--I'm not a rocket scientist, but I know enough to know that probably means that the photos are not even interesting enough for anyone to want to waste their time critiquing them.

Your focus is spot on. Does your camera have an adjustable diopter on the viewfinder? That may help.

Umm...(exits stage left, googles "adjustable diopter Nikon D5100"...)...
Why, yes, yes it does!! That's a good thing to know, thanks! Unfortunately, it doesn't help at all...doesn't adjust far enough for me to even notice any difference. Still, it may explain why I can never even SEE the information in the viewfinder on my sister's D90.

To me flower shots like this are usually pretty boring, but I really like the colors and comp on #1. #2 is overexposing on the red channel as you can see there are relatively large areas of the flower that are a single tone of red. You could deasturate the red channel slightly, lower the exposure slightly, use the recovery tool if shooting RAW, adjust white balance slightly if shooting RAW.... shooting RAW is going to give you a LOT of options to help correct exposure issues if you don't already shoot and edit in RAW. Also, RAW editing, in my opinion, is easier than photoshop editing.

I think #3 is the most creative of the group..... a very tight monotone color pallette, really cool and sleak lines. The only thing I'd complain about is how the background has sharp edges in it, compared the background in #1. This is, I believe, referred to as 'confused' bokeh and is a quality of the lens. Your lens is capable of nicer bokeh as demonstrated in #1 though. #1 has an aperture of f/8, #3 is f/5.6 which is probably wide open. Perhaps you could stop down a bit to improve this.

I will try your suggestions for #2 and repost it. I think I see what you're talking about. Unfortunately, I do NOT shoot in raw, because I can't get my work computer (which has CS5) to open the raw files at all. I get an error message saying "the file appears" to be from a camera model that is not supported by the installed version..." Might just need an update, but that would mean calling our IS department...and I'd sooner spend six hours having root canals and listening to a Justin Beiber marathon concert than to deal with them...
I used to have CS4 at home...but the laptop it was on got run over about a month ago... BUT...I think last night, I *finally* successfully starting extracting stuff from the hard drive, so I'm hopeful I can recover it. Then maybe I can start trying some raw images.

How is RAW editing "easier" than photoshop editing? What is different about it?

#3: I'm not completely sure, but I *think* I see what you're talking about. I do struggle with getting my aperture setting right for the effect I'm going for. Sometimes, I get exactly what I want, like in #1, but then other times, I think I just get flustered trying to adjust all the settings quickly and still get the picture...especially when the "picture" might just hop right on out of the frame if I'm not quick enough, lol!

Thanks for your thoughts on it; I'll repost #2 after I try to make some of the adjustments you mentioned.

 

[bazooka]

My pleasure.

To be clear, the reason your #3 background is not soft and lush like your #1 background is, I believe, a result of lens build quality. It's possible that your lens cannot create that soft of a background when it so close to your subject like in #3. All lenses have weaknesses that need to be worked around or compromised with, but granted, kit lenses generally have more more issues than more expensive lenses. So I think for this shot, for this one aspect, you are restricted by your lens. You may or may not be able to work around it. But it's something to consider in the future when viewing your images after taking them... is the background soft and smooth, or does it show sharp unpleasant 'busy' features?

I think RAW is easier because you have a lot more leeway when it comes to correcting exposure issues because you are working with the uncompressed, unaltered data that comes directly from the sensor. Furthermore, most of the adjustments that you need are right there set up for you on sliders and you can pretty much just work your way down the line.... white balance? Check. Exposure? Check. Need Recovery? Check. Black Level? Check.... so on and so forth. You can get into a set workflow for your images without worrying about layers, key shortcuts, etc.

Now, PS is much more powerful! But RAW, particularly CS5, is incredibly powerful and is probably all most people need. Now you can make local brush-based adjustements to exposure, saturation, even the healing brush.

If it's giving you an error that it can't open that camera's file-type then you are correct, you need an update. If you are not an admin on your machine, you will need them to do that. Your call on whether it's worth it or not. Your images look sharp and well processed so your current workflow is working well for you, but, for example, the red clipping on #2 could easily be fixed in RAW, whereas it CANNOT be fixed with the jpg.

 

[sm4him]

Okay, that makes sense about the lens, thanks! I'll have to start paying better attention to determine what I can, and can't, expect it to do.

I work in a government job, and even though I know more about my computer than anyone they ever send from IS, and even though I maintain two websites, do all the photography and graphics and social media, they refuse to make me an admin, because--as one of the techs put it, so eloquently--"that would just be BAD. We can't do that." It took years to convince them to at least make me a Power User, so I can download graphics and powerpoint templates and such from the internet. I am the ONLY person in our entire division who can even do that, or who is allowed to use more than IE.

When I finally got them to spring for Adobe CS5, it took 4 months to get IS to come install it. Then it took another 3 weeks for them to come and fix everything they screwed up in the installation. At some point, I'm going to have to come have them do a couple of other things anyway, so when I put that request in, I'll add the Camera Raw update to it.

In the meantime, I think I'll try to shoot some RAW this weekend and see what I can do at home...I got my Photoshop successfully running after extracting it from the run-over laptop's hard drive (I can't wait to tell my geek son what I did!! He'd promised to look at it when he came home for Christmas, but he'll be shocked I got it working myself...)

Thanks for all your comments!

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Bazooka covered anything I could have said.


I do like the frog. I am conflicted about the confused bokeh. Normally it bothers me, but in this image it sorta repeats the feel of the bumpy frogs back. I can't commit to saying it works well though. Nicely composed.

Be careful if you do global sharpening on an image with confused bokeh, it enhances the issue. If anything, selecting the background and a small amount of blur might be beneficial. Then locally sharpen the frog.

You put up a nice avatar.

 

[mommy-medic]

I don't know diddly squat yet but I love the bokeh on the first one!

 

[e.rose]

Keep in mind it's the weekend... A lot if us are "out".

I'm on my iPhone right now but your focus looks sharper than most of *my* images and I don't have vision issues haha. ::

 

[bazooka]

Yeah, thanks Bitter, I completely forgot about suggesting that. Just add some gaussian blur to the background. It won't be the same as upgrading your lens, but it will definitely help.

I'm an IT "specialist" here at the tv station I work at which basically means I'm 2 years into learning the ropes. I completely understand them not giving anyone admin privs because they want all the machines to either be the same, or they need to know what goes on them so they can effectively troubleshoot if something goes wrong. Take it easy on them.

 

[sm4him]

You put up a nice avatar.

Aw shucks...thanks, Bitter. :blushing:

Be careful if you do global sharpening on an image with confused bokeh, it enhances the issue. If anything, selecting the background and a small amount of blur might be beneficial. Then locally sharpen the frog.

I tried this, but my editing skills are a work in progress, and it's just as hard to tell exactly HOW blurry something is as it is to tell how in focus something is! I selected the background and then added blur until *I* started to notice a difference, but not sure if it's too little, or too much.


IjamsFrog_0312version2 by sm4him, on Flickr

 

[sm4him]

I don't know diddly squat yet but I love the bokeh on the first one!

Thanks!--doesn't matter what you know (or think you know)--every opinion matters!

 

[sm4him]

Keep in mind it's the weekend... A lot if us are "out".

I'm on my iPhone right now but your focus looks sharper than most of *my* images and I don't have vision issues haha. ::

I do know that getting comments is as much a matter of timing as anything--posts drop off the active topics so fast that they can easily be missed.
As for being "out"--all I know is I'm *never* "all here."

Thanks--it REALLY helps to know that others think my focus is okay. My sister has always said it was, but...well, she's my sister! Now to work on improving my use of available lighting...

 

[sm4him]

Yeah, thanks Bitter, I completely forgot about suggesting that. Just add some gaussian blur to the background. It won't be the same as upgrading your lens, but it will definitely help.

I'm an IT "specialist" here at the tv station I work at which basically means I'm 2 years into learning the ropes. I completely understand them not giving anyone admin privs because they want all the machines to either be the same, or they need to know what goes on them so they can effectively troubleshoot if something goes wrong. Take it easy on them.

Yeah, I do understand that part, and I'd be fine with it, IF they would just hire people that know what they're doing! There is ONE guy that we all LOVE to get, but I think they know that and purposely send us other people--no kidding. And seriously, at least 80% of the people they have sent over the last 5 years, just didn't know how to even troubleshoot the problem. *I* usually end up "suggesting" something they could "try"--knowing full well that it's the way to fix the problem I'm having.

I have GREAT respect for IT people who have IT skills...we just seem to excel at hiring people who don't.