Nice colors on 6, 5, 3, and 2. Though some look a bit out of focus such as in 6 and 2. Looks like a very nice place to photograph flowers chuborama! Try not to place things too centered like in 6. Try more like you have it in 2 and 3. That my input for today. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for your comments Conrad. I realized after that 2.8 was probably much too shallow even for the look I wanted, so the center of the flower of 6 is indeed out, and almost all of the surrounding petals in 2 are also out! I do however like the backgrounds of 2.8 shots more than 4 or 5.6.
Why do you think I should stay away from the centerting? Not enough originality? I agree that placing things in different areas allow you to draw your viewers eyes to certain aspects of the flowers, but I did like the symmetrical pattern in 6 and tried to show it that way - what doesn't work for you in 6?
chuborama wrote:
Thanks for your comments Conrad. I realized after that 2.8 was probably much too shallow even for the look I wanted, so the center of the flower of 6 is indeed out, and almost all of the surrounding petals in 2 are also out! I do however like the backgrounds of 2.8 shots more than 4 or 5.6.
Why do you think I should stay away from the centerting? Not enough originality? I agree that placing things in different areas allow you to draw your viewers eyes to certain aspects of the flowers, but I did like the symmetrical pattern in 6 and tried to show it that way - what doesn't work for you in 6? ...Show more →
Well I guess it just seems like I want to see more of the flower. Everyone has their tastes but if It were my photo, I'd either show a very close close-up to get rid of all background all together, or, back up to show more of the whole thing. The symmetry is just not as pleasing as creating tension by giving space to one side or the other in my humble opinion. I hope you don't take this personally my friend. I was just giving my personal critique.
I think these are nice. On number 6, IMO, it might have been stronger to be in a bit closer. f2.8 does make for nice backgrounds as long as you have what you need in focus. I think Conrad is pointing you towards the rule of thirds. I like the perspective on number 4. #3 is the strongest of the set in my opinion. Decluttered background and nice colors help it out. - Paul
Nice exposure on the twilight setting Welcome to the posting side of the forum
#2 the color seem off and selecting your point of focus and DOF closest to us would be helpful in this shot, you want to minimize the amount out-of-focus closest to us
#3 This is your best shot, exposure excellent, detail excellent, color is wonderful and accurate. Composition would be strengthened by selecting the group of flowers to the right perhaps
#5 get closer and empasize the color and details!
#6 overexposed and over saturated IMO but that is common on red and often needs the most critical processing or exposure compensation to come out nice.
Thanks Pinball and Karl for your comments. What's generally a good rule to follow when you shoot flowers close up to achieve reasonable depth of field? I guess I mean, what do you find to be the best balance for you in terms of getting a nicely blurred background but keeping the important parts of your picture in focus? Also, what's the best way to work the reds in post? I DEFINITELY saw alot of over saturated reds in my pictures.
Conrad - definitely no offense taken, sometimes questions come across as sounding silly on a forum. I was just curious of your opinion, and thanks for giving it! Now that the 100 L Macro is out I'm seeing alot of cheaper 100 Macro USM Non IS so I'm thinking I might go pick one up and take your suggestion of getting CLOSE
Also, here's a question I had: for flowers, what is your personal preference - Close up lens, tubes, or a dedicated macro lens? Assuming you're on a budget (otherwise 100 L Macro here I come!
chuborama wrote:
Thanks Pinball and Karl for your comments. What's generally a good rule to follow when you shoot flowers close up to achieve reasonable depth of field? I guess I mean, what do you find to be the best balance for you in terms of getting a nicely blurred background but keeping the important parts of your picture in focus? Also, what's the best way to work the reds in post? I DEFINITELY saw alot of over saturated reds in my pictures.
Conrad - definitely no offense taken, sometimes questions come across as sounding silly on a forum. I was just curious of your opinion, and thanks for giving it! Now that the 100 L Macro is out I'm seeing alot of cheaper 100 Macro USM Non IS so I'm thinking I might go pick one up and take your suggestion of getting CLOSE
Also, here's a question I had: for flowers, what is your personal preference - Close up lens, tubes, or a dedicated macro lens? Assuming you're on a budget (otherwise 100 L Macro here I come! ...Show more →
I typically desaturate the red channel in Adobe Camera Raw when they get oversaturated. I have not been on a calibrated monitor yet, so I am guessing for the most part. That part is about to change.
Try to look for backgrounds that aren't cluttered or distracting. The background is as important as the foreground. That isn't always available though, so you may have to work around it. I tend to set my aperture based on the background as well as the angle taken on the flower. Different angles require different DOF. I'm sure Karl with have some better tips for you.
I have a 60mm macro lens that I really like, I also use tubes on my 70-200. They both tend to require manual focus and the 60 won't work on your camera. I would start with tubes and see how you do. I have been using that combo more frequently lately for floral photos.
Paul, do you use Canon tubes or Kenko tubes, or some other brand? I have read the posts and threads and price wise I figure Kenko is the way to go, but something about getting Canon products...I try to convince myself it's for the resale value but we all know that's not true
I think you brought up a great point - I have noticed that I pay alot of attention to my frame and my edges, but not as much to the background. I will have to start doing that!
I love using film, though I have been "rediscovering" my 30D. I am looking at getting the EF-S 60mm for my girlfriend; since my plan is to go 5DII + film, I would probably want either of the 100mm macros. But I've read so many good reviews for the 60mm!
I have the 70-200 as well as the 28-70. The 28-70 has a higher natural max mag. I think (in my crude experiments I feel like the 28-70 focused noticeably closer) so in the case I buy some tubes should I look to use that lens rather than the 70-200?
chuborama wrote:
Paul, do you use Canon tubes or Kenko tubes, or some other brand? I have read the posts and threads and price wise I figure Kenko is the way to go, but something about getting Canon products...I try to convince myself it's for the resale value but we all know that's not true
I think you brought up a great point - I have noticed that I pay alot of attention to my frame and my edges, but not as much to the background. I will have to start doing that!
I love using film, though I have been "rediscovering" my 30D. I am looking at getting the EF-S 60mm for my girlfriend; since my plan is to go 5DII + film, I would probably want either of the 100mm macros. But I've read so many good reviews for the 60mm!
I have the 70-200 as well as the 28-70. The 28-70 has a higher natural max mag. I think (in my crude experiments I feel like the 28-70 focused noticeably closer) so in the case I buy some tubes should I look to use that lens rather than the 70-200?...Show more →
I have the Kenko tubes and would recommend those. There is no glass in these and the build quality of them is fine. They are much less expensive than the Canon ones. I use the tubes primarily with my 70-200. For the most part, you need to manual focus with it. That isn't a big deal for me, I manually focus most of my macro and floral shots anyhow. The live view you will have with the 5DII will greatly assist with this.
I have played a bit with tubes at the shorter focal lengths, and they can be impressive and aggravating. I suppose it just takes time to get used to. The focus distance is so short, that you need to really use a tripod. When I do this, I set my lens to manual focus and spin the focus ring to a focal point. I then move the lens back and forth until the object comes into focus.
If you are planning on going full frame, I would probably stick with the one of 100 series macro. I think Sigma makes a nice macro lens too, but I haven't tried that one. My 60mm has been fantastic, I have made photos with it that are literally sharp down at the pixel level. Martin, who is on this forum, uses the 180mm L macro lens and gets good results.
You may want to peak over in the macro forum. There are a few stickies on the top of it discussing gear and techniques for macro photography. There are a LOT of options. Folks like Nobo and LordV can probably give you better tips on the macro stuff.
Welcome to the posting side of the forum 
