plants, i dont get it

Another example of not getting close.


$P1020520 sm.jpg
 
Just copy Mish's patented style.

Step 1: Consume copious amounts of questionable quality wine
Step 2: Whip something
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Make pretty photo
 
Bribrius, the principles of shooting plants, are the same as for any other subject that is not an action shot. In no particular order:

  • Texture,
  • Repeating patterns,
  • colour,
  • Shape,
  • detail,
  • Contrast (in texture, pattern, colour, shape)
  • Complementary contrast
  • Story-telling
  • Relationship of subject to environment...

and so on.

The basic process is the same as for other photographic material:
  • Find a subject
  • decide what aspect of the subject is interesting (one or more of the list above)
  • decide on whether the relation to the environment/surroundings is important (ie, closeup or more distance or wider angle)
  • look for a perspective that simplifies the image to focus on the aspect you found interesting (eliminate clutter, stuff that doesn't contribute)
  • create an appropriate link between subject and foreground/background (angle, perspective, DOF)
  • light the subject so that the main aspects are highlighted (natural light, time of day, supplementary light...)
  • Choose an exposure that (usually) maximizes the detail in the subject or the aspect you're trying to illustrate
  • Process the shot to bring out the aspect you've tried to capture
  • Adjust the image to focus attention on the aspect (crop, adjust brightness, add/remove noise, sharpen or blur as needed)

and Voila, you'be done it.

However, it starts with the first two lines: Find a subject, and decide what aspect you think is interesting.

Look at your first four images with with you opened up this thread.

First image of dandelion heads. Plane of focus is on three dandelion stalks at the right of the image, with the dandelion heads at the upper right. Other dandelion head visible at center, left, but out of focus. Some extraneous plant in foreground on left, out of focus. Light catches the in-focus stalks, most of the rest is in shadow. A barely-visible (but in focus) unopened dandelion head at bottom of image. So what can you do with that?

One idea that occurs is that you could make it a life-cycle story, where you show the unopened flower, the full ready-to-disperse head, and the empty heads (with perhaps a seed or two still holding on to the head).
Or, you can make it a symmetry play by focusing closely on the ripe head. Or you can decide to treat it as a shape/texture play, and using a deep-enough DOF show the way the parachutes of the seeds link up together. Or you can make it into a story-telling play with the seeds starting to leave the "home". But whatever angle or aspect you choose, for an image to be effective, it has to convey that aspect or story in a straightforward manner. It should be obvious to the viewer what you saw and what you want the viewer to see.

Second image - field of dandelions. The plane of focus is mostly on the darker part of the image in the center and foreground. The bright streak of light (which should usually be used to highlight a subject) is away from the center, and is out of focus. Nothing stands out. We see a field with dandelions, like the thousand other views of dandelions we've seen. But we don't know why we should be looking at THIS particular perspective and choice of frame.

Third image - semi-closeup with a "V" of darkness in the middle, offset a bit to the left. Out of focus stuff on the left, in-focus jumble of dandelion stalks on the right. Slab of light falling on the dandelions on the right, highlighting them. So, what should we be seeing? What aspect do you think is more important? What do you want us to see/understand? Not clear.

Fourth image - Three bands of colour (darker green on bottom third, a thin band of yellowish-green in middle, dark background in the upper third. Again - what's the subject? What aspect should we be focusing on? What do you want the viewer to see? What is the relevance of the location of the light? What do you want to convey/hide by your choice of DOF?

If you then look at the two images that Ron put up, it's more obvious what he wants us to look at. The mushroom image shows shape, and texture. The curves of the shape of the mushroom contrast with the lines of the gills. He put the plane of focus on the gills so that we know that's what HE was looking at and found interesting. He also shot it in a symmetrical fashion, that allows us to recognize the rounded shape and contrast it to the lines of the gills.

In the second image, he gives us a very sharp view of a fern leaf, again emphasizing the symmetry of the leaf and the shapes. He included enough of the background to allow us to see the environment, and the repeating theme of other fern leaves surrounding the main one. The spot of light at the center of the main frond essentially tells us "LOOK HERE!". The positioning of the frond in the frame is not exactly centered, so we are encouraged so shift our gaze slightly and notice the branches to the left of the frond.

Further down, we see MartinCrabtree's contribution - two images. Both are centered (implicit message "THIS is what I found important."). The poppy shot reveals a number of contrasts: Colour, texture, shape. It's also a "story" shot in showing the flower emerging from its protective shell. Intentionally or not, the angle of the main stalk crosses the out-of-focus grass stalks in the background and creates a bit of visual tension. The darkness of the background encourages us to stay focused on the main subject.

In the second image, he presents us with another symmetry/texture/colour play. It is very clear where we need to be looking. Everything that could distract us from the aspects HE chose, has been rendered dark or blurred.

So to summarize this long post - you need to find what aspect of the subject you find interesting, and then work to isolate and emphasize that aspect for your viewers. It's as simple and complicated as that.
 
Bribrius, the principles of shooting plants, are the same as for any other subject that is not an action shot. In no particular order:

  • Texture,
  • Repeating patterns,
  • colour,
  • Shape,
  • detail,
  • Contrast (in texture, pattern, colour, shape)
  • Complementary contrast
  • Story-telling
  • Relationship of subject to environment...

and so on.

The basic process is the same as for other photographic material:
  • Find a subject
  • decide what aspect of the subject is interesting (one or more of the list above)
  • decide on whether the relation to the environment/surroundings is important (ie, closeup or more distance or wider angle)
  • look for a perspective that simplifies the image to focus on the aspect you found interesting (eliminate clutter, stuff that doesn't contribute)
  • create an appropriate link between subject and foreground/background (angle, perspective, DOF)
  • light the subject so that the main aspects are highlighted (natural light, time of day, supplementary light...)
  • Choose an exposure that (usually) maximizes the detail in the subject or the aspect you're trying to illustrate
  • Process the shot to bring out the aspect you've tried to capture
  • Adjust the image to focus attention on the aspect (crop, adjust brightness, add/remove noise, sharpen or blur as needed)

and Voila, you'be done it.

However, it starts with the first two lines: Find a subject, and decide what aspect you think is interesting.

Look at your first four images with with you opened up this thread.

First image of dandelion heads. Plane of focus is on three dandelion stalks at the right of the image, with the dandelion heads at the upper right. Other dandelion head visible at center, left, but out of focus. Some extraneous plant in foreground on left, out of focus. Light catches the in-focus stalks, most of the rest is in shadow. A barely-visible (but in focus) unopened dandelion head at bottom of image. So what can you do with that?

One idea that occurs is that you could make it a life-cycle story, where you show the unopened flower, the full ready-to-disperse head, and the empty heads (with perhaps a seed or two still holding on to the head).
Or, you can make it a symmetry play by focusing closely on the ripe head. Or you can decide to treat it as a shape/texture play, and using a deep-enough DOF show the way the parachutes of the seeds link up together. Or you can make it into a story-telling play with the seeds starting to leave the "home". But whatever angle or aspect you choose, for an image to be effective, it has to convey that aspect or story in a straightforward manner. It should be obvious to the viewer what you saw and what you want the viewer to see.

Second image - field of dandelions. The plane of focus is mostly on the darker part of the image in the center and foreground. The bright streak of light (which should usually be used to highlight a subject) is away from the center, and is out of focus. Nothing stands out. We see a field with dandelions, like the thousand other views of dandelions we've seen. But we don't know why we should be looking at THIS particular perspective and choice of frame.

Third image - semi-closeup with a "V" of darkness in the middle, offset a bit to the left. Out of focus stuff on the left, in-focus jumble of dandelion stalks on the right. Slab of light falling on the dandelions on the right, highlighting them. So, what should we be seeing? What aspect do you think is more important? What do you want us to see/understand? Not clear.

Fourth image - Three bands of colour (darker green on bottom third, a thin band of yellowish-green in middle, dark background in the upper third. Again - what's the subject? What aspect should we be focusing on? What do you want the viewer to see? What is the relevance of the location of the light? What do you want to convey/hide by your choice of DOF?

If you then look at the two images that Ron put up, it's more obvious what he wants us to look at. The mushroom image shows shape, and texture. The curves of the shape of the mushroom contrast with the lines of the gills. He put the plane of focus on the gills so that we know that's what HE was looking at and found interesting. He also shot it in a symmetrical fashion, that allows us to recognize the rounded shape and contrast it to the lines of the gills.

In the second image, he gives us a very sharp view of a fern leaf, again emphasizing the symmetry of the leaf and the shapes. He included enough of the background to allow us to see the environment, and the repeating theme of other fern leaves surrounding the main one. The spot of light at the center of the main frond essentially tells us "LOOK HERE!". The positioning of the frond in the frame is not exactly centered, so we are encouraged so shift our gaze slightly and notice the branches to the left of the frond.

Further down, we see MartinCrabtree's contribution - two images. Both are centered (implicit message "THIS is what I found important."). The poppy shot reveals a number of contrasts: Colour, texture, shape. It's also a "story" shot in showing the flower emerging from its protective shell. Intentionally or not, the angle of the main stalk crosses the out-of-focus grass stalks in the background and creates a bit of visual tension. The darkness of the background encourages us to stay focused on the main subject.

In the second image, he presents us with another symmetry/texture/colour play. It is very clear where we need to be looking. Everything that could distract us from the aspects HE chose, has been rendered dark or blurred.

So to summarize this long post - you need to find what aspect of the subject you find interesting, and then work to isolate and emphasize that aspect for your viewers. It's as simple and complicated as that.
ugggh.

I don't find any of it interesting except the light. I don't even like flowers!! ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't even tell the difference between a weed and a flower!
 
why are you trying to fill the frame at all?
 
why are you trying to fill the frame at all?

Hmmm..... I guess I just think that something interesting in the foreground beats a lot of plain, uninteresting foreground before the subject. But that's just me, you shoot however you like. I was just trying to contribute with my opinion, not tell you how to compose.
 
so I worked on insects a little and plants today.
I kind of, sort of see why people like the insects.
I am still lost on how or why for the plants.

I started with simple grass, a setting sun.
I got nothing.
im sure someone could have made something out of it.
I spent more time scratching my head trying to "get it"

View attachment 75502View attachment 75503View attachment 75504View attachment 75505

I tried the light going through the woods pick to and shooting into the trees the other day.
Lot of those are circulating around.
I didn't really get that either.

I am pretty sure mine aren't coming out as well as theirs.
I need to give things a shot though, even if I have doubts so I figured I would try it once.

Is there like a way and purpose to doing this kind of thing?

Feel free to pick on my pix. I felt like a moron anyway trying to figure out the concept of putting the camera down and shooting through grass.


you can also see some of the posts of "fequency"in this regard
 
Try finding something that you find interesting, that might help you get better photos. I think the ones of the purple irises are nice and the raindrops on the blades of grass is an interesting one. But many of these look like you were just snapping off pictures and make me wonder if you were even really seeing what you were looking at.

I can't say after looking at the photos that it's surprising that you're not into flowers and plants If it's something that doesn't have your interest that might be what shows in the pictures compared to taking photos of something that you like.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top