With or without the reflector?

[JustJazzie]

If it ever quits raining today, I would like to go out and try to retake this one. I missed focus on the close up shot, and I don't like the three grassy pieces that come to a point in the background. So, the question is, reflector or no reflector? Or a different reflector? I was using the gold side of my large reflector for portraits. Is it too gold? Would I do better to try and rig up something white (and smaller) instead? Would a smaller reflector keep so much light from flooding the grass? Or is it better with out the reflector at all. Any other C&C is very much appreciated, as well as any information on what kind of plant this might be!

Thanks a bunch!

~Jazzie

 

[KmH]

Without the reflector, and at a time of day the light direction and quality are better suited to the subject.

 

[JustJazzie]

Without the reflector, and at a time of day the light direction and quality are better suited to the subject.

So the golden hour doesn't work for plants???.... What angle of light do you suggest?

 

[Derrel]

I think the one without the reflector has more drama, and the light looks more-natural. The one that has the reflector has a suspiciously high amount of fill lighting on a plant that has very STRONG rim-lighting on it--which looks, well, un-natural. I like the rim-lighting on the shot done without the reflector, and the somewhat darker tones help emphasize the fact that the light is coming from the back. I also prefer the much more defocused background rendering in the shot made without the reflector. As far as a better time and a more-appropriate type of light for the subject matter, I am not sure what the other poster was referring to; you shot a beautiful plant in lovely, subtle evening back-lighting...a great kind of lighting to show off a plant or flower, as long as the exposure and processing are done right.

One suggestion: clean up by snipping off or mashing down objectionable or distracting twigs and grass stalks, like the three pieces of grass that are to the left of the main subject; those bits of grass stalk could easily be snipped with scissors. And you are also right: the three pieces that come together in the reflector shot--those totally KILL the background...just ruin it...such a strong uniting of the grasses is very much an eye-catching distraction. The background becomes a big,big part of shots like these, so it needs to be attended to very much.

 

[JustJazzie]

I think the one without the reflector has more drama, and the light looks more-natural. The one that has the reflector has a suspiciously high amount of fill lighting on a plant that has very STRONG rim-lighting on it--which looks, well, un-natural. I like the rim-lighting on the shot done without the reflector, and the somewhat darker tones help emphasize the fact that the light is coming from the back. I also prefer the much more defocused background rendering in the shot made without the reflector. As far as a better time and a more-appropriate type of light for the subject matter, I am not sure what the other poster was referring to; you shot a beautiful plant in lovely, subtle evening back-lighting...a great kind of lighting to show off a plant or flower, as long as the exposure and processing are done right. One suggestion: clean up by snipping off or mashing down objectionable or distracting twigs and grass stalks, like the three pieces of grass that are to the left of the main subject; those bits of grass stalk could easily be snipped with scissors. And you are also right: the three pieces that come together in the reflector shot--those totally KILL the background...just ruin it...such a strong uniting of the grasses is very much an eye-catching distraction. The background becomes a big,big part of shots like these, so it needs to be attended to very much.

Believe it or not, I trimmed a TON of weeds around it already. My issue is, that I rush rush rush. Perhaps I need to challenge myself (when referring to subjects that aren't moving) to stare at the subject for at least 3 minuets before actually shooting it.....digital has made me lazy. Lol. Take 100 shots and you're bound to get a good one! :hide: I assure you that's NOT how I shot film.

 

[Derrel]

Oh, I totally believe you trimmed around it. It's just that there are three pieces of yellow grass on the left, and three on the right hand side that are close to the focus zone, and which are kind of distracting. The thing is that the human brain tends to zero right in on what we LIKE, or what it is that we wish to see, and we often do not see the distractions until later, at the computer or after the film is developed. The idea of waiting three minutes is actually a LOT like the way old-time workers would shoot a shot like this using a view camera...things were seen on the groundglass rather dimly, and were upside down, and laterally reversed, and everything had to sort of be "mentally processed",item by item, by item.

One thing to consider: when shooting using an eye-level, through the lens viewfinder approach, it's easy to get caught up in the focusing-on-just-the-main-subject kind of thing; looking at the image on the rear LCD can change the way you see an image, I am convinced. But anyway--you've identified something that I think almost always works; taking MORE TIME to really,really,really LOOK at the image, and to evaluate EVERYTHING in the frame. Everything. Some people refer to that as, "working the scene," and then taking more shots, evaluating, then taking more shots shots, then refining the shot again, in a deliberate and methodical manner. I think with digital cameras, many times we tend to work too rapidly, and then move on to the next shot maybe too quickly, before we've really had the time to see what we're shooting. And that's mainly because the cameras shoot so FAST, and with so,so little effort, compared to say, loading film holders, or shooting film, advancing the film, cocking the shutter, and so on. With digital, it also does not cost fifty cents to three dollars and fifty cents per press of the release.

 

[JustJazzie]

Oh, I totally believe you trimmed around it. It's just that there are three pieces of yellow grass on the left, and three on the right hand side that are close to the focus zone, and which are kind of distracting. The thing is that the human brain tends to zero right in on what we LIKE, or what it is that we wish to see, and we often do not see the distractions until later, at the computer or after the film is developed. The idea of waiting three minutes is actually a LOT like the way old-time workers would shoot a shot like this using a view camera...things were seen on the groundglass rather dimly, and were upside down, and laterally reversed, and everything had to sort of be "mentally processed",item by item, by item. One thing to consider: when shooting using an eye-level, through the lens viewfinder approach, it's easy to get caught up in the focusing-on-just-the-main-subject kind of thing; looking at the image on the rear LCD can change the way you see an image, I am convinced. But anyway--you've identified something that I think almost always works; taking MORE TIME to really,really,really LOOK at the image, and to evaluate EVERYTHING in the frame. Everything. Some people refer to that as, "working the scene," and then taking more shots, evaluating, then taking more shots shots, then refining the shot again, in a deliberate and methodical manner. I think with digital cameras, many times we tend to work too rapidly, and then move on to the next shot maybe too quickly, before we've really had the time to see what we're shooting. And that's mainly because the cameras shoot so FAST, and with so,so little effort, compared to say, loading film holders, or shooting film, advancing the film, cocking the shutter, and so on. With digital, it also does not cost fifty cents to three dollars and fifty cents per press of the release.

I actually had to blur out several of those grass blades you were talking about, because they were IN my focal plane. Thanks for your thoughts Derrel! It's not looking like I will get to reshoot tonight, hopefully the rain doesn't let it grow TOO much between now and then. I like it the way it was.

 

[JustJazzie]

Same flower, new lighting..... We didn't have a great golden hour tonight. it was way too cloudy, but I tried again anyways. I am hoping that I get another nice sunset tomorrow to try again. I don't find the plant as interesting as it grows, so I want to get it right soon! How is the back ground here? The leaves to the right are part of the same plant but different flower. I am not sure how to get rid of them with out damaging the plant too much. Are they too close to my focal plane?