Different view of the violet...

[w7xman]

I wanted to created a different view of this flower that is so often shot straight on...but found the depth of field a challenge. This is what I came up with...

I would love to hear some honest critique as to whether or not this shot works for you...

Canon 20D w/ Sigma 150mm
12mm extention tube
1/8 @ F4
ISO 200

 

[Tom Rankin]

I wanted to created a different view of this flower that is so often shot straight on...but found the depth of field a challenge. This is what I came up with...
I would love to hear some honest critique as to whether or not this shot works for you...

Actually, if the depth had included the closer side of the flower, as well as the stalk, that would have been better for me. But I really like the sweep of the flower as a whole!

 

[Grumpy]

Bluntly put: the shot “works for me” conceptually, is very nice as far as it goes, but falls short of the vision goal in execution.

If you can solve the depth of field problem, this approach should make a wonderful photo that provides us an unusual perspective on the flower.

A touch of fill light to the left would help bring out a bit more texture and detail in the stem and bud (or whatever you call those parts of the flower). This must be handled adroitly, so as not to overpower and undo some of the subtle rim lighting that helps separate the subject from the background.

The poster-like simplicity of this photo (the subject against a plain background) adds immensely to its visual appeal. I like the subtle gradations in the background color and tone.

Compositionally, good use has been made of the frame: although alternative crops are possible, none seem to yield a composition that is clearly superior to what you have chosen.

G.

 

[kmorgan]

I really like it a lot. Has a "painting" kind of quality to it. Well done.

What's important is, do you like it?

Kevin

 

[Grumpy]

A followup comment on the depth-of-field bugaboo:

The out-of-focus part of the flower in the background is less a problem than the out-of-focus part of the flower in the foreground. This is another way of saying that if you can’t get the whole thing in focus, concentrate at least on the foreground petal and stem. In fact, fading to out-of-focus in the background is a pretty nice effect.

G.

 

[w7xman]

Thanks all,

In short, I do like it...but to elaborate there is an if. I was hoping that the flaws I see with the DOF would be a minor nit. I think that I have to go find a violet where I can get a similar angle, but get more of the focus on the front and the stem as is.

Everyone needs a challenge. I now need less wind!

Thanks for the thoughts...

 

[NewHampshire]

I think the interesting play with the DOF makes this a very interesting photo. I must say this capture is simply amazing!

Brian

 

[Kevin Judy and Emma]

I like it

I like the transition from sharp to soft focus. When examining something closely with the naked eye your eye does this naturally. It's sort of as though you caught this natural occurrence. Beautiful shot!

KDT

 

[Mark Schaefer]

I always like unusual views of common subjects. This kind of side and rear view is a good example. So this photo works for me.

One of the general rules concerning depth of field is that the closest portion of the subject should be in focus. If it is soft it can be somewhat unsettling to many viewers. With animal subjects it is often said that one eye in sharp focus is enough. However, if the animals nose or beak (which is closer to the viewer) is soft, then the photo is often unsettling. With flowers the same can be true with unsharp petals in the foreground. Of course another rule is that all rules are made to be broken, but hopefully with good cause. I think you have good cause here.

Other options. I do think that a composition that primarily included the fluted green sepals and stem would also work very well. There are often variegated lines in the sepals which when emphasized in the composition will complement the similar lines in the petals. The delicate hairs on the stem can also be interesting. You could include as much of the petals as you could keep in focus. It would not bother me if the bright areas of the petals were up against the frame.

 

[nartreb]

When I saw your wood anemone photo, it struck me as beautiful, effective, and a bit surprising. The violet photo is also all those things but it's not as good.
I suspect the others are right: it helps to have the out-of-focus areas behind the in-focus areas. Also, the camera position on the anemone photo is more extreme (behind/underneath rather than from the side), making it more surprising.

 

[forestgnome]

This is my first nit of any of your images that I have seen, but that's the point of your post. I don't like the off-focus front part of the flower. Of corse, the rest of the image is awesome, as usual. I can't add anything else or make any suggestions that you'd be unaware of, and again, critique by Grumpy and MS is educational.

Please keep posting your images. They've inspired me to take flower portraits to a higher level. I have created a style in my mind as a result of an image I took last summer and your posts really get my juices flowing.

happy trails

 

[Solitary]

I like it

Well I defer to the much more experienced photographers here, but for what it's worth I like it. Having the flower out of focus creates a "flame-effect" that I really like. I can almost see it flickering.

 

[w7xman]

Thanks all...I think that the take home message is along the lines of what I think about it as well. I have a good thing going with it, but it's just not executed perfectly. The thing I like about flower photography is that you can always improve upon the subject. It's not like the fleeting light at sunset, the violets are still in the woods. So...I'll do the same thing over...and better.

Thanks for your thoughts, tips and time!