Smokey yellow

[tirediron]

Mucking around with the theme for this month's camera club challenge, "Yellow". Thoughts, comments & critique appreciated:

 

[ZombiesniperJr]

Nice shot

 

[BrentC]

Maybe a little too obvious choice of subject.

 

[jcdeboever]

I think the image is fine. I normally like to have everything in focus with studio flowers but I think that is a preference thing. I also do not like the vase to show in studio shots either but again, preference. Personally, I would jam a wire in the stem and turn the flower head on with camera, make the aperture smaller, get in close, and then apply the smoke.

 

[smoke665]

As JC said above I'm a fan of sharp detail focus on flowers also. The vase I think is one of those either show it or don't, but don't go half way type of things. Smoke is one of those things that looks great when you get it right, but has a very narrow range of what looks good. In this case it's not really working.

 

[zombiesniper116 15]

I like it but don't know yet what to look for in this type of photography so just learning from above.

 

[KmH]

I clicked on the photo hoping to see a larger version.
None the less the exposure and lighting look just right.

The lower petals furthest from the camera are a bit to soft focus wise for my tastes.
I also get the impression of a bit of field curvature or barrel distortion.
Of course the camera club judges will be the arbiters for the club camera challenge.

 

[tirediron]

Nice shot

Thanks Logan!

Maybe a little too obvious choice of subject.

I never said I was original!

I think the image is fine. I normally like to have everything in focus with studio flowers but I think that is a preference thing. I also do not like the vase to show in studio shots either but again, preference. Personally, I would jam a wire in the stem and turn the flower head on with camera, make the aperture smaller, get in close, and then apply the smoke.

Normally I like everything sharp as well; in this case I had some sort of "soft petals merging with the smoke" concept in my mind, which I don't think worked out overly well.

As JC said above I'm a fan of sharp detail focus on flowers also. The vase I think is one of those either show it or don't, but don't go half way type of things. Smoke is one of those things that looks great when you get it right, but has a very narrow range of what looks good. In this case it's not really working.

Thanks! Can you elaborate more on your 'smoke not working' point? It didn't work out the way I had envisioned, but I'd like to see if we're thinking the same thing.

I like it but don't know yet what to look for in this type of photography so just learning from above.

This is what you don't look for!

I clicked on the photo hoping to see a larger version.
None the less the exposure and lighting look just right.

The lower petals furthest from the camera are a bit to soft focus wise for my tastes.
I also get the impression of a bit of field curvature or barrel distortion.
Of course the camera club judges will be the arbiters for the club camera challenge.

Thanks Keith.. there might be a tiny bit of barrel distortion; that was the 24-70, at, or very nearly 70. We'll see how it goes over tomorrow evening.

 

[smoke665]

Thanks! Can you elaborate more on your 'smoke not working' point? It didn't work out the way I had envisioned, but I'd like to see if we're thinking the same thing.

Part of the answer to your question is do you want smoke (dynamic) or do you want fog (static)?

Having had a lot of up close and personal encounters with smoke my observation is that it's very dynamic, always moving. Combustion heat causes it to rises until the temperature cools to the ambient air temperature, then recedes,to be replaced by more coming up. As it's made of gases, and unburned organic compounds the colors will change and vary as it moves, depending on the density of the organic compounds within.

Fog on the other hand is static, it lays there unless it's moved by air currents. Comprised mostly of water vapor, there isn't much color difference unless it would be caused by light diffraction. Think color gels in a stage show.

As to opinions on the shot, I feel a little like I'm schooling the teacher, because your experience level, knowledge and ability is so much greater than mine, but here goes. If I was using smoke, I'd envision a combination of subtle and dramatic changes to the flower as the smoke wafted around it, from softness, to color, to saturation. I'd also envision some areas of the flower peaking through sharp as a tack, with no changes to color or saturation. If I was using fog, I'd plan to include all of the vase, and have it emerging from the depths of the fog, maybe even have the fog up to and include part of the flower, with faint glimpses of the vase within the fog. The difference from the smoke is that I would see a gradual transition from soft diffused look to in focus detail on the flower.

And as a disclaimer: I've tried both smoke and fog on different occasions, and haven't gotten it totally right yet, came close a couple of times, but no cigar. Looking forward to what someone who knows what they're doing can produce!

 

[qmr55]

I like the concept, my notes are below.

• Good idea on the smoke, but I feel its poorly executed. I think if you want the effect I believe you're going for the smoke needs to be intensified a little bit, which could possibly be done post.
• I dislike seeing half the vase in the photo, as I believe the odd shape/texture of the glass takes the viewers eye away from the focus of the image, the flower.
• Personal preference, but I tend to agree with what was said above in regards to the entire flower being in focus.

Granted, I am far from a professional and your level of expertise is many years beyond me, those are the first few things that popped in my head when I saw it.

Good luck!

 

[tirediron]

Thanks Smoke! This was done with my portable smoke machine (the type used for fogging/smoking night clubs and such). Because the smoke can leave a slightly sticky residue in places, I was directed outside with my experiments and the breeze, light as it was, was not really cooperating. I wanted a more homogeneous, fog-like layer below the top of the vase, but couldn't quite get it. The idea was to "trap" some of the yellow, gelled light from the speedlight camera right.

 

[tirediron]

I like the concept, my notes are below.

• Good idea on the smoke, but I feel its poorly executed. I think if you want the effect I believe you're going for the smoke needs to be intensified a little bit, which could possibly be done post.
• I dislike seeing half the vase in the photo, as I believe the odd shape/texture of the glass takes the viewers eye away from the focus of the image, the flower.
• Personal preference, but I tend to agree with what was said above in regards to the entire flower being in focus.

Granted, I am far from a professional and your level of expertise is many years beyond me, those are the first few things that popped in my head when I saw it.

Good luck!

Thanks! I had lots more with much heavier smoke, but wasn't as fond of them. I'm interested in all the comments about the cropped vase, as I thought it gave the stem some grounding, but I see your point. Much appreciate the points!

 

[smoke665]

@tirediron We have a fog machine at the firehall for training, not very realistic, stinks, and you're right it leaves a residue on things. We have a barrel that we burn wet straw in at the training house - that's about as realistic as it gets without burning down the house, but it leaves A LOT of residue. LOL

Like everything else, you really need to limit the amount of variables you're dealing with, and shooting outside in the wind is next to impossible. Do you have a garage or storage building that you could shoot in?

I've seen these in various stores Amazon.com : AGPtEK Aluminum Mist Maker Fog Maker for Water Fountain Pond Rockery Fishtank Vase Birdbath : Patio, Lawn & Garden . If this is the same as the store model, they make a fantastic fog layer over the water that will spill off the edge.

 

[tirediron]

@tirediron We have a fog machine at the firehall for training, not very realistic, stinks, and you're right it leaves a residue on things. We have a barrel that we burn wet straw in at the training house - that's about as realistic as it gets without burning down the house, but it leaves A LOT of residue. LOL

Like everything else, you really need to limit the amount of variables you're dealing with, and shooting outside in the wind is next to impossible. Do you have a garage or storage building that you could shoot in?

I've seen these in various stores Amazon.com : AGPtEK Aluminum Mist Maker Fog Maker for Water Fountain Pond Rockery Fishtank Vase Birdbath : Patio, Lawn & Garden . If this is the same as the store model, they make a fantastic fog layer over the water that will spill off the edge.

You're 100% right on all counts; most of this stems from the fact that I procrastinated until the day before the assignment was due (Highschool memories anyone???) and couldn't think of a thing... grabbed a yellow flower and tried to get creative without putting in the necessary effort.

I have seen those mist makers, and even had a small one (not big enough for this job), but it's a good idea. Thanks!