The two roses

[passerby]

I have these 2 photos and the 1st one is mine. I shot that from across the fence as it was inside someone's yard. The result was dissappointing at best of course, the colour is flat. Yet the 2nd photo which is not mine but taken of the net (It's free btw) is so good and pleasing in the eyes. How did they do this?

Anyone can give me an idea as how to get such result? Your shot example will do.

Thanks for any input.

 

[MarcusM]

The 1st shot looks overexposed, hence the washed-out, lack of contrast look. Also the lighting looks harsh, not diffuse.

The 2nd shot looks like it was taken with a flash, I'm guessing off-camera, so the lighting was more controlled.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Antithesis]

The 1st shot looks overexposed, hence the washed-out, lack of contrast look. Also the lighting looks harsh, not diffuse.

The 2nd shot looks like it was taken with a flash, I'm guessing off-camera, so the lighting was more controlled.

Just my thoughts.

I agree, the second shot has artificial lighting. I would underexpose by atleast a stop or even two, then bump the contrast in photoshop. Keep an eye on the background as well, you have a pipe or something running through it.

 

[LaFoto]

Not sure about the artificial lighting, but the second photo was definitely taken indoors. My first thought was "Window light!" which also is a more directional light than what you had when you photographed your rose. Plus your photo is a tad overexposed, indeed. It is easier to recover highlights out of a slightly underexposed photo than it is to add shadow to a photo too bright.

To me it always seems that such intense reds are a challenge for any camera/photo/print-out/presentation, too. I find it quite hard to get them right.

 

[passerby]

Thanks mates for your C&C, I do appreciate them.

I feel like to produce something like that 2nd picture - or better - and I went to the park this morning on cloudy day where there are few roses ready for shooting. The flowers were in bad conditions and this 50mm in wide open aperture is difficult to grab on focus.
The results now are a bit better than the last one but far from equalling that rose above, maybe I need to set it up indoors with chosen flower and lighting.

Thanks for looking and C&C are welcome (needed actually).


F1.8 1/400

F2.8 1/160

 

[confucious]

For your last shots, I would suggest stopping down by about 4 stops. That should be the sweet spot for that lens...it will help make your shots sharper. This means, though, slowing down your shutter speed...for this kind of shot I would suggest at slowest 1/80th unless you have a tripod.

You would also benefit from a macro lens...you get a lot more fine detail with macro - even if it is not true 1/1.

Lastly - if shooting this kind of scene with a nifty-fifty, cropping is important. This is because you can't actually "zoom" in, nor can you get closer than about a foot and a half or so. This limits composition at the time of the shot. The white flower would benefit from the bottom quarter being cropped out leaving just the smooth colours of the background bokeh and the flower...the stem and leaves detract a bit.

PS - You also wouldn't have the loss of detail in the front left petals with a higher aperture...

 

[passerby]

This 4 photos below are not roses but just flowers. I jsut want to
keep them in one thread.

Very slowly I think I started picking up the understanding as how to
get good flower shot. It is not easy but I am getting there. I think I
need longer reach lens.

The first 2 shots used 18-55mm kitlens while the last 2 used the 50mm
fixed lens. Amazingly no:2 used ISO 800, very clean ISO that one.
Anyway I put the detail at each shot. Thanks for looking and C&C
always welcome and appreciated.

1. Kitlens set at 55mm, f5.6, 1/100, ISO 200

2. Kitlens set at 55mm, f8.0, 1/160, ISO 800

3. 50mm fixed lens, f5.6, 1/400, ISO 200

4. 50mm fixed lens, f8.0, 1/80, ISO 200