Calendula

[linolium]

Here is a bright photo of a calendula flower. What do you think I could have improved upon?

http://linolium.mine.nu/33

http://iris.afraid.org/temp/calendula-old.jpg

[blinking8s]

the angle doesnt mesh witht he DOF really...the side shot of the flower doesnt have much impact really

[rockyrapier]

Love the layout of the site. Any chance you'd like to share this with us?

[linolium]

the angle doesnt mesh witht he DOF really...the side shot of the flower doesnt have much impact really

Hmmm.. mind explaining this a little bit more to someone who isn't so photo-savvy? Sorry, I really need to get a book on this or something.

And rockyrapier, I'll see what I can do. Do you think many people would want to use it?

[raminia]

the angle doesnt mesh witht he DOF really...the side shot of the flower doesnt have much impact really
Agreed!

[rockyrapier]

I think people enjoy it. I myself have been looking for a template on which i can build/modify. I have differently cropped photos sometimes and certain templates don't handle them well. I've been trying to modify some to go with my light coloured blog.

I like the appearence of simplicity in this layout, as well as the many borders and cells that break up the different sections.

[jimtron]

I think Blinking8s is referring to depth-of-filed when he says, "DOF." But I don't understand how the depth-of-field doesn't mesh with the angle. I actually like the angle, it shows the green base of the flower which is lovely. And limited depth-of-field is effective in shots like this, because it keeps the background from competing with the subject.

My critique: I like the rich, saturated color. I wish the tops of the petals weren't cut off. I think it's quite difficult to take really interesting photographs of flowers. It's tough to capture, in a photograph, that sublime quality that you can experience in person. I've seen some breathtakingly gorgeous sunsets that I've photographed, and the shots always look to me like a cheesy postcard.

[jeremycherfas]

I think it's quite difficult to take really interesting photographs of flowers.

Agreed. But take a look at http://www.ubcbotanicalgarden.org/potd/ for spectaclulary good images with equally good information. (And not just because Daniel name-checked me yesterday!)

[Jodi]

Hello,

hmm... to further explain blinking8s comment....(i hope!) its true that the depth of field isn't really working for the composition of the image in my opinion. Depth of field refers to the area of the photo that is in focus... technically a large depth of field would have a great amount of distance between what is the closest thing in focus to the camera, and what is the furthest away. Shallow depth of field would be the opposit. The human eye tends to wander naturally towards the area of sharpest focus. In this shot it is the base of the flower/stem that has the most focus. Other than that everything seems soft. While it is a really beautiful image, I think it would be stronger if say there was a part of the actually flower petals that held some focus, or perhaps if the angle was a tad higher and you saw into the shot. Its also hard as the area in focus and the foreground are also in shadow... perhaps shooting this when the sun is lower could help? That's just my two cents though...

That all being said, if it weren't up for critique, I probably would have just thought, 'that's really pretty'. Its a beautiful shot. Let's see some more!

--jodi

[linolium]

Hmm, would something like this be more... preferable?

http://iris.afraid.org/temp/calendula.jpg

As you can see, the focus is more on the flower than on the stem. (Although there is a bit of a weird shadow going on.)

Also, I feel a bit stupid asking this, but could someone tell me how one can adjust the depth-of-field?

[jeremycherfas]

I personally think that's a better image, although the background is a bit more complex.

Anyway, depth of field is related to aperture. The lower the aperture (f2.8 for example) the less "leeway" around the actual focal point. At high apertures, f64, much more on either side of the actual focal point is in focus.

So, you need to go to manual settings and either open wide, for shallow DOF, or stop down tight, for deep DOF.

[jimtron]

I prefer the original shot. I think the limited depth of field worked, including the pedals in the foreground that were out of focus.

Three things affect depth of field:

1- F-stop/aperture. The wider the aperture, the less depth of field you get.
2- Distance from lens to subject. The closer you are to the subject, the less depth of field you get.
3- Focal length. Longer lens=less depth of field.

Jeremy's right about manual settings, but another way to control depth of field is to use aperture-priority mode, which is usually the one on the dial marked "A." You pick the F-stop, the camera determines which shutter speed to use to make the proper exposure.