I posted this in Nature and Wildlife, but never got any reaction at all, so maybe its not exciting enough ?
I liked it myself, and I tend to be rather picky, but lets see what you think.
Maybe more traction on BW?
I like its simple, direct presentation, soft background.
On a lousy monitor but it appears you have preserved the whites effectively.
Maybe a bit soft?
So maybe just a bit more depth of field next time ? I did crop quite a bit of black nothingness on the right side, to keep it off to the side just a bit.
I'm not sure what you mean by more traction on BW ?
It seems bland and uninteresting. I want to see some sharpness or detail, but instead see some sort of unattractive pock marks on the pedals. There was an attempt at interesting lighting but the flower does not really glow or pop. Instead we see blown out whites on the right of the flower and some artifacts. It looks like you tried to avoid the blown out appearance by darkening the highlights, but again there is no detail.
I think I see some of the things you attempted but in IMO this one just did not make the cut.
Where is you intended focal point?
Can you post up the original.
I think part of the issue is that the focal point and the lighting are incongruous with each other.
By that I mean that the area that has the most contrast is not the area that is most in focus. We are drawn to contrast. Sometimes the contrast is a contrast in color, sharpness, tonal value, line, etc.
Here, it seems that the area of sharpness is shrouded in low contrast lighting, while the area that is out of focus is illuminated by high contrast light. They have a "cancelling/offsetting" effect rather than an enhancing one. Then having two different areas that both have a cancelling/offsetting incongruity between the sharpness and lighting contrast ... well, it kinda leaves the viewer confused at where the real point of the image is that you want us to look at ... and it goes kinda "flat" as Jim alludes to.
Recognizing this, your pp work can be used (to a degree) to create a change in contrast to draw us (push/pull) where you want us to go when subject & lighting don't always align the way we'd like for them to.
Took a stab at it ... not likely the same as your vision for it would be, but to illustrate the changes in contrast and visual response.
Maybe I'll have to try focus stacking, although I know the term, I don't really know how to do it.My main focus was on the front of the petals, where the water droplets, and reflections were.
I keep forgetting when going from say landscapes to macro, that If anything focal point is even more critical in macro since the depth of field is so limited..
My main point is to actually get something in focus ! I still try and shoot all my macro shots, without a tripod, so its a bit of a hit or miss affair, since I'm usually moving and so is the subject.
Bsmooth wrote:
since I'm usually moving and so is the subject.
Gotcha ... torture test / skill builder @ eye-hand coordination. Doesn't produce a high "keeper" rate ... but it does improve reaction skills.
I shoot them hand held also ... and part of it is for the sheer challenge involved (or lazy @ tripod ). Probably 99% of my keepers shot hand held ... still leave me knowing that while I feel good @ having "conquered" the challenge ... they lack the IQ that a good tripod based shot would have produced with better control @ dof placement and the difference in sharpness that gets amplified at these ranges by even the slightest deviation in focus or motion.
). Probably 99% of my keepers shot hand held ... still leave me knowing that while I feel good @ having "conquered" the challenge ... they lack the IQ that a good tripod based shot would have produced with better control @ dof placement and the difference in sharpness that gets amplified at these ranges by even the slightest deviation in focus or motion.