Orange!

[DScience]

 

[KmH]

Nice composition. The wet foliage made for some very nice specular highlights. Actually the term for the quality of the blurred background is 'bokeh'. Not all blurred backgrounds have nice bokeh. This one does.

The group of flowers makes a nice loose diagonal from lower left to upper right. The diagonal tends to draw the viewers eye through the image.

Perhaps the next thing you might explore is Understanding The Hyperfocal Distance.

I feel having more of the foreground in focus would have made the image stronger by having that closest flower completely in focus. It's a good idea to make several exposures in a range of focal lengths, particularly when using a camera that doesn't have a depth of field preview function on it.

 

[DScience]

Nice composition. The wet foliage made for some very nice specular highlights. Actually the term for the quality of the blurred background is 'bokeh'. Not all blurred backgrounds have nice bokeh. This one does.

The group of flowers makes a nice loose diagonal from lower left to upper right. The diagonal tends to draw the viewers eye through the image.

Perhaps the next thing you might explore is Understanding The Hyperfocal Distance.

I feel having more of the foreground in focus would have made the image stronger by having that closest flower completely in focus. It's a good idea to make several exposures in a range of focal lengths, particularly when using a camera that doesn't have a depth of field preview function on it.

Thank you, I really appreciate the sound advice. I am really glad you mentioned the hyperfocal distance, as I've never read anything about that.

So, I have a question because I was thinking about the front flower being completely in focus as well. First off, I was shooting with a 50mm f1.8 lens, so I was unable to adjust the focal length, f1.8 mostly because I wanted to experiment with a shallow DOF, as well as different backgrounds. I am still learning, and this may sound like a dumb question, but could I have gotten the whole front flower in focus with the f1.8, or would I have needed to raise it to like 5.6? I am just curious.

 

[Plounphom]

I love it man, And the way it is blurred in the background just makes it more appealing.

 

[KmH]

That's why i refered you to the hyperfocal distance tut, but no you wouldn't need to change the aperture.

1/3 of your dof is in front of your focus point and 2/3 is behind the focus point. You could have moved your focus point nearer till the leading edge of the front flower was in the dof for f/1.8.

Don't forget that you can adjust your aperture and ss in 1/3 increments.

The devil is in the details. You're just getting started but you're asking the right questions.

 

[DScience]

So I am a little confused. The whole page about hyperfocal distance you added, talked about this in application for taking landscape shots. It talks about this in the sense of getting the most detail in a long range shot, right?

The picture I took is of flowers in a pot, right against a brick wall that had vine type plants growing on it. I was about 1 foot from the focal point, and there was about a foot from the focal point to the wall, maybe one and half.

 

[KmH]

1. Note the first 3 images near the top of the page.

2. Play with the calculator at the bottom of the page based on the parameters of your Orange image.

Hyperfocal distance is not used exclusively for landscape photography.