Jump to content


Photo

More Tulips


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 geedee

geedee

    Dedicated SDP Member

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,872 posts
  • Lenses:Nikon 16-35 VR f4 50mm f1.4 70-200 VR II f2.8 x2 converter
    18-70 f3.5-4.5DX (kit for D70s)
    Tamron 150-600 f5-6.3
    Cannon 50mm f1.8
  • Flashes:Nikon SB 910
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Cannon AE1
    Nikon D70S D800

Posted 24 April 2017 - 07:36 AM

Perhaps not landscape but Tulips related so why not post here...?

 

Been enjoying the daffodils then the tulips and on the verge of a neighbouring flowering cherry tree coming into full bloom, I was desirous of catching all three in bloom together, though given they all come to their best and then die off  at slightly different times, I had no real expectations of  capturing what for me might be considered a reasonable image.

 

That the flowering tree is circa 25 yards distant from the tulips and daffs, and wishing to avoiding loosing too much detail, and given I have almost zero PP skills It was down to which lens to use..?  DOF thinking would tend to draw me to my 16-35 though could not get the image I wanted, thus had a go with my 70-200 hoping that it`s f22 capability might do the job, though how far from the tulips would I need to be to hope to get detail in both the tree and framed up as I might desire...

 

Additionally I thought it might just be worth trying out my CP as the sun was near rt angles to the subjects and might enhance the colours in the sky. With f22 and CP even in bright sun would require such a slow shutter speed as to require the use of a tripod, though as the wind was blowing hard moving the subjects....I had no great expectations , tried to time the capture between winds strongest blasts and when the fast moving clouds cleared the sun long enough to brighten things up... This is a crop from the original and reduced the highlights a little in Elements.. and the sky played little influence in the crop...hmm!

 

Any CC appreciated

 

F22  1/13th  ISO 100  70-200@ 135mm.   

Attached Files


  • David Pavlich likes this

#2 rdb images

rdb images

    Geek

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 117 posts
  • LocationWarminster, PA USA
  • Lenses:AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR
    AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G VR
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon D7100

Posted 24 April 2017 - 08:24 AM

How can you go wrong with flowers? One of my favorite subjects. Unfortunately, at my location, bulbs are starting to wither. Such a shame bulb blooms fade so quickly.

 

Anyway, I like your shot, but the background is so busy to me it makes keeping my eyes on the tulips difficult. Many nice colors in the shot though. I understand what you were trying to do. Perhaps several shots would have better with each one focusing on a different part of the scene. Or not. I still like the photo.

 

Bob



#3 Reciprocityrules

Reciprocityrules

    Comfortably Numb

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • LocationChina & U.S.
  • Lenses:Olympus:
    12-40mm f/2.8
    40-150mm f/2.8
    60mm f/2.8 Macro
    300mm f/4
    MC-14 1.4x TC
    Kenko Ext. Tubes 26mm
  • Flashes:Yongnuo YN-660
  • Camera Body or Bodies:OMD EM5 Mark II
    OMD EM1 Mark II

Posted 24 April 2017 - 09:21 AM

Gedee, I am glad you went out and shot, and you put a lot of thought into it.  I like the composition and I think it's a fine shot.  I am an amateur and a hack.  When I see beautiful trees with blossoms, I can never capture in an image the feeling I get when being there.  I've tried, and it never works for me.  You did well to capture the beauty of both the tulips and the tree; the tulips really catch your eye with their bright red color.  I think the wind played a role, and I understand what you were doing with the settings; 1/13 may have been a bit slow.  I know you like things in focus, but that's going to be a difficult challenge.  I think if I could do it over, I'd try a different placement of the camera; maybe low in front of the tulips with the tree blossoms against the blue sky in the background; but that's going to blow the clarity out of one of the elements unless you merge two photos that have both the tulips and tree blossoms in focus.  I like the shot, and I am really glad you shared it!  I hope you keep at it and post more experiment with this area - it's beautiful.  I suck at landscapes, and I've seen guys photo-stack stuff like this.  You did better than I could have.  Perhaps some of the better landscape photographers here can chime in and help. 


Jonny


#4 geedee

geedee

    Dedicated SDP Member

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,872 posts
  • Lenses:Nikon 16-35 VR f4 50mm f1.4 70-200 VR II f2.8 x2 converter
    18-70 f3.5-4.5DX (kit for D70s)
    Tamron 150-600 f5-6.3
    Cannon 50mm f1.8
  • Flashes:Nikon SB 910
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Cannon AE1
    Nikon D70S D800

Posted 24 April 2017 - 12:46 PM

Bob, you hit the nail on the head, there is no real subject and Steve`s mantra of isolate and simplify was definitely not applied. I had returned to that which initially brought me to photography that is RECORD keeping, in that I created the scene (other than the tree) in that I built the retaining wall with a couple of hundred 25kg blocks and thus also created the area of planting to hide the drab appearance of the wall in an area that was formerly concreted over....Thus I took the pic for ME as I thought it was now probably looking at it`s best.... a bit selfish perhaps...(-:

 

Jonny, I had tried with the 16-35 though did not like the perspective even at 35mm. It was not until I had it on my laptop screen that I picked up on the tree being out of focus even at f8,  and the effect of the shadow in what was an early morning scene thus thought I would have a go with the 70-200 and set up in a few locations requiring to move MUCH further back than with the 35mm in order to get the DOF desired. Yup, could have upped the speed without the CP in place which might have been a wiser choice....?  Though given the settings on this failed hand held pic, I could have reduced the aperture a bit to increase the DOF

 

f8  1/400th  auto ISO 160  16-35 @ 35mm

 

Attached Files



#5 Roderick

Roderick

    Master Photographer

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,306 posts
  • LocationDublin, Ireland
  • Lenses:Centon 500mm f8.0 Mirror (!)
    Sigma 24-105 f4 DG OS HSM A
    Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3
    Samyang 14mm f2.8 manual
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon D750
    Sony NEX-6

Posted 25 April 2017 - 02:34 AM

Nice Geedee.

That second photograph in the more interesting  (to me anyway).

In the first photo the reds seem too intense, and I hanker for more detail

The second photo gives natural colours and nice detail.  I like the subtle tight changes between the centre of the picture and the edges, and the dark sky with the promise of rain.



#6 geedee

geedee

    Dedicated SDP Member

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,872 posts
  • Lenses:Nikon 16-35 VR f4 50mm f1.4 70-200 VR II f2.8 x2 converter
    18-70 f3.5-4.5DX (kit for D70s)
    Tamron 150-600 f5-6.3
    Cannon 50mm f1.8
  • Flashes:Nikon SB 910
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Cannon AE1
    Nikon D70S D800

Posted 25 April 2017 - 04:14 AM

Thanks for taking the time to comment on that which is no work of ART Rod (-:  more just an attempt to capture an aspect of nature that is very time and weather dependant given the differing and variable lifespan of the blooms, the daffs are dying off daily and the tree is not yet in full bloom....   

 

For me the (second) pic which was taken at 35mm failed due to the lack of reasonable detail in the tree and the shadow passing through the tulips. as for the reds looking too intense in the first pic posted, the reds should be close to natural as the only PP in that pic was to crop it and reduce the highlights slightly as I thought aspects of it were slightly over exposed, perhaps more obvious in the white Daffodil..?   I have cropped further into the 70-200 (first) pic and hope to post it with this reply, in doing so my hope is to show more detail in the over exposure that I tried to correct by reducing highlights and to show the reds as captured in-camera prior to highlight reduction in Elements.... also in this crop the effect of the gale that was blowing and necessarily long exposure time can be seen in the lack of detail, in this JPEG the WB was set to full sun..

 

Yup the pic failed on many levels in its own right but it works on a purely personal level as a scene capturing a combination of natural occurrences that require quite a few things to fall into place. The sun is here today though the high winds and cold snap seem to be hanging around thus the tree is holding back it`s blooms...

Attached Files



#7 Roderick

Roderick

    Master Photographer

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,306 posts
  • LocationDublin, Ireland
  • Lenses:Centon 500mm f8.0 Mirror (!)
    Sigma 24-105 f4 DG OS HSM A
    Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3
    Samyang 14mm f2.8 manual
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon D750
    Sony NEX-6

Posted 25 April 2017 - 05:51 AM

I'm looking at some pictures I took of some red tulips and the red channel is vivid to say the least.

From what I understand, it has to do with how white balance is achieved in camera. Red pixels are pushed to compensate for the blue cast of natural daylight and shadows.

(from photography-on-the.net website)



#8 geedee

geedee

    Dedicated SDP Member

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,872 posts
  • Lenses:Nikon 16-35 VR f4 50mm f1.4 70-200 VR II f2.8 x2 converter
    18-70 f3.5-4.5DX (kit for D70s)
    Tamron 150-600 f5-6.3
    Cannon 50mm f1.8
  • Flashes:Nikon SB 910
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Cannon AE1
    Nikon D70S D800

Posted 25 April 2017 - 08:53 AM

Rod, have to admit that when you mention "red channel" that I begin wonder at the worth of buying a camera that creates it`s own interpretation of the colours presented to it... As a selective Luddite I find such possibilities frustrate me greatly, whereas my ideal would be that the reasonable quality camera would capture as best it can natural colours, which I would hope was the aim of good quality camera manufacturers, and if the variations in light were important relative to colour cast that white balance would have the necessary compensatory effect...Beyond that it would seem that personal interpretation relative to digitally adjusting software to create the end product to suit ones own tastes plays a major part in the creation of the end product....?  

 

Before I came to understand any of the many PP processes available, it ever seemed that pics taken by another who recorded events I attended that his pics appeared more vibrant and colourful.... Then I found out that such things can be introduced via PP processes and thus the difference may not have been down to his Sony camera but to his use of PP to modify his images...

 

All that without thinking of the variables in individuals eyesight or indeed the calibration of our monitors more than enough variables to cause me to shrug my shoulders....(-:

 

When I look out the window at those same tulips swaying in the sun .....they are indeed vivid relative to all else in that area of the garden....(-:

 

Thanks again for taking the time to comment, I really appreciate it. 



#9 Roderick

Roderick

    Master Photographer

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,306 posts
  • LocationDublin, Ireland
  • Lenses:Centon 500mm f8.0 Mirror (!)
    Sigma 24-105 f4 DG OS HSM A
    Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3
    Samyang 14mm f2.8 manual
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon D750
    Sony NEX-6

Posted 25 April 2017 - 09:07 AM

Hi Geedee.

This is the link I was reading about red saturation and white balance.

http://photography-o...ad.php?t=672663



#10 Reciprocityrules

Reciprocityrules

    Comfortably Numb

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • LocationChina & U.S.
  • Lenses:Olympus:
    12-40mm f/2.8
    40-150mm f/2.8
    60mm f/2.8 Macro
    300mm f/4
    MC-14 1.4x TC
    Kenko Ext. Tubes 26mm
  • Flashes:Yongnuo YN-660
  • Camera Body or Bodies:OMD EM5 Mark II
    OMD EM1 Mark II

Posted 26 April 2017 - 12:37 AM

Sorry for the delayed response Gedee, I wanted to look things over and take my time.  For what you were trying to accomplish, I like the first shot better.  I think the entire tree gets lost in the second shot, and the first shot addresses both the tulips and the tree well!  Nice wall!  You put some work into that, and it looks like a very nice.  Anyway, for what you were trying to accomplish, sot one!


Jonny


#11 geedee

geedee

    Dedicated SDP Member

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,872 posts
  • Lenses:Nikon 16-35 VR f4 50mm f1.4 70-200 VR II f2.8 x2 converter
    18-70 f3.5-4.5DX (kit for D70s)
    Tamron 150-600 f5-6.3
    Cannon 50mm f1.8
  • Flashes:Nikon SB 910
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Cannon AE1
    Nikon D70S D800

Posted 26 April 2017 - 04:07 AM

Rod, I really appreciate your efforts to set me on the correct course, though I fear that you are up against my limited mental capabilities and my selective Luddite tendencies... It seems that whatever algorithm is created in my camera as the result of all that is put into it`s creation plus my selection of white balance to get close to selecting the appropriate Kelvin setting via a manual WB input ( or should I have left it in auto WB  (- :) .. The end result will be unable to capture reds that might  look natural...? That being the case I require to use a PP software algorithm to rectify the programming in my camera....???? (-:

 

Yeah it can all get just a bit too ..err..geeky, when all I wanted to capture was a moment in time that nature presented me with, when I thought the main issues involved might just be ... hyperfocal distance and desired perspective... in relation the distances between subjects as perhaps being the aspects most likely to limit my chances of success, and making a reasonable choice as to which of my lenses might just provide the best results...?  

 

I suspect that this little challenge that I set myself has taught me a lot... though trying to remember it is the hardest part...)-: 

 

Jonny seems you are well tuned in to my hopes relative to capturing a RECORD as opposed to creating a work of art, I am still trying to improve on the scene though every morning another couple of daffodils die off and the tree is not in full flower yet, so I have to accept that nature has won out...AGAIN (-:

 

Just a gentle breeze this morning with a very light grey overcast sky, selected "shade" in WB and had another go

 

f22  I/6th ISO 100  70-200 at 125mm  No PP other than cropping.

 

Dug out my 16-35 though it did not like the temperature change.. from circa 15deg C in the cupboard to something like 3-4 deg C out in the garden...Left it there in the hope it de-fogs internally..?? If it does I will have another go with it. 

 

As ever ANY CC welcomed. 

Attached Files



#12 Roderick

Roderick

    Master Photographer

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,306 posts
  • LocationDublin, Ireland
  • Lenses:Centon 500mm f8.0 Mirror (!)
    Sigma 24-105 f4 DG OS HSM A
    Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3
    Samyang 14mm f2.8 manual
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon D750
    Sony NEX-6

Posted 26 April 2017 - 08:03 AM

Haha, Geedee.  In the end, its the picture that matters.



#13 elcab18

elcab18

    Master Photographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,580 posts
  • LocationSo Cal
  • Lenses:Nikon 12-24
    Nikon 16-35
    Nikon 50
    Nikon 24-85
    Nikon 70-200
    Nikon 105 micro
    Nikon 200-500 f 5.6
  • Flashes:Yongnuo YN 568 EX
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon D610
    Nikon D500

Posted 26 April 2017 - 08:57 AM

I like the first shot the most, nice composition and color.  I like your approach to the shot and understand many of your photos are a record of work or experiences.  I can't tell how far the tree is behind the tulips...wondering if f 22 was needed.  I probably would have done the same things you did but also gave the 50 mm a try at maybe f 11 or 13 (can't remember if an f 1.4 lens will shut down that much).  Just my thoughts :)



#14 Reciprocityrules

Reciprocityrules

    Comfortably Numb

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • LocationChina & U.S.
  • Lenses:Olympus:
    12-40mm f/2.8
    40-150mm f/2.8
    60mm f/2.8 Macro
    300mm f/4
    MC-14 1.4x TC
    Kenko Ext. Tubes 26mm
  • Flashes:Yongnuo YN-660
  • Camera Body or Bodies:OMD EM5 Mark II
    OMD EM1 Mark II

Posted 26 April 2017 - 09:38 AM

For me, my natural eyes can see far more beautiful images than I can create; so nature wins again! (and often ;) )


Jonny


#15 John W

John W

    Master Photographer

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,465 posts
  • LocationMaryland - Eastern Shore
  • Lenses:Nikon 200-500 5.6
    Nikon 16-80 2.8-4
    Nikon 500mm f4E FL
    Nikon 50mm f1.8
    Nikon 1.4III extender
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon D500
    Vangurad Actus Plus 283AT Tripod
    Feisol CT-3371 Rapid tripod
    Induro Git 404L series tripod
    Gitzo GM 4552L Monopod
    Really Right Stuff BH-55 Ball Head
    Wimberley WH-200
    Mongoose 3.6 Gimbal
    Induro GHB - 1 Gimbal

Posted 26 April 2017 - 10:24 AM

I like the first shot Geedee. If I saw such colorful flowers in the spring I would want to record them as well. Agree with Doug that f22 may have not been necessary and I think that given the wind a higher ss may have resulted in a sharper image.



#16 geedee

geedee

    Dedicated SDP Member

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,872 posts
  • Lenses:Nikon 16-35 VR f4 50mm f1.4 70-200 VR II f2.8 x2 converter
    18-70 f3.5-4.5DX (kit for D70s)
    Tamron 150-600 f5-6.3
    Cannon 50mm f1.8
  • Flashes:Nikon SB 910
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Cannon AE1
    Nikon D70S D800

Posted 26 April 2017 - 05:02 PM

Rod, I am more a hammer and spanner type though was forced in my last 20 yrs or so at work to be involved with ever changing leading edge technology which occasionally failed though my frustration was more related to the myriad of excuses as to why it failed and what MIGHT be tried to restore "whatever" to working order...Thus by nature I tend to try to simplify my thinking on many aspects of technology....which does not always work....(-:

 

Doug, I lack artistic ability though seek to improve my ability to improve my pic taking my abilities. The tree is circa 25 yards from the tulips thus in order to try to get detail in both I was forced to contemplate the effect of hyperfocal variations between lenses and within the zoom lenses I had available, while also seeking to capture a very specific ..perspective... with the tree taking up much of the background.   I had tried with my 16-35 thinking it might be best though at f22 an issue of "fogging" showed up... my next thought was to try the 70-200 from much further back from the tulips in the hope of capturing the scene along the lines I hoped for, which I thought worked out reasonably well. I had not considered the 50mm given my desires to have the tree taking up a large part of the background, though given I failed with the 16-35, I like your idea of trying it out... thanks. Image posted below. Though which is better..hmm..?

 

As for what f stop might be needed... I went for f22 initially to try for maximum hyperfocal range and even that was not quite enough to get both main subjects in focus even when opening up the distance between the camera and the tulips to approximately 25 yds... making it perhaps 50 yds to the tree... thinking hyperfocal distance increases with increased distance of the camera from the point of focus.....still not enough. I used auto focus on the tulips then switched to the tree and noted the autofocus changes which made it obvious I could not get both in focus. Had  I any skills with PP then layering would be the best option though in-camera HDR might have helped to some degree in terms of the dynamic range involved when using the 50mm given the sky is part of the pic...? but hey it is all getting a bit geeky for me..(-:

 

Jonny...we can but try...(-:

 

John, f22 was the priority and 100 ISO a desire, even with that I did not capture that which I desired, I could have upped the ISO to allow for an increase in shutter speed had I succeeded with the DOF then perhaps  the pic might have improved..

 

f16  1/30th  ISO 100   Nikkor 50mm 1.4

 

 

 

 

Attached Files



#17 Reciprocityrules

Reciprocityrules

    Comfortably Numb

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • LocationChina & U.S.
  • Lenses:Olympus:
    12-40mm f/2.8
    40-150mm f/2.8
    60mm f/2.8 Macro
    300mm f/4
    MC-14 1.4x TC
    Kenko Ext. Tubes 26mm
  • Flashes:Yongnuo YN-660
  • Camera Body or Bodies:OMD EM5 Mark II
    OMD EM1 Mark II

Posted 26 April 2017 - 07:58 PM

I like this image the best!  It may not highlight the tree as much, but there's the unintended consequence of the depth provided by seeing well into the background.  There's a very clear distinction between foreground and background which allows me to gaze into the countryside.  This has been a very interesting exercise in focal length, depth of field and composition.  I also like the soft lighting in this shot as well.  Thanks for taking us along with you on your photo shoot Gedee!


Jonny


#18 elcab18

elcab18

    Master Photographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,580 posts
  • LocationSo Cal
  • Lenses:Nikon 12-24
    Nikon 16-35
    Nikon 50
    Nikon 24-85
    Nikon 70-200
    Nikon 105 micro
    Nikon 200-500 f 5.6
  • Flashes:Yongnuo YN 568 EX
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon D610
    Nikon D500

Posted 26 April 2017 - 10:38 PM

Kaching :), You changed the composition, the weather was different...love the looking space...the grouping of trees in the center and the hills beyond, Love it, nice work!


And great thinking...



#19 Roderick

Roderick

    Master Photographer

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,306 posts
  • LocationDublin, Ireland
  • Lenses:Centon 500mm f8.0 Mirror (!)
    Sigma 24-105 f4 DG OS HSM A
    Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3
    Samyang 14mm f2.8 manual
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon D750
    Sony NEX-6

Posted 27 April 2017 - 02:56 AM

Yeah, that last one is top drawer!

You got everything, as Doug says.

It really draws the viewer in. and gives them a peek of what les over the wall !



#20 John W

John W

    Master Photographer

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,465 posts
  • LocationMaryland - Eastern Shore
  • Lenses:Nikon 200-500 5.6
    Nikon 16-80 2.8-4
    Nikon 500mm f4E FL
    Nikon 50mm f1.8
    Nikon 1.4III extender
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon D500
    Vangurad Actus Plus 283AT Tripod
    Feisol CT-3371 Rapid tripod
    Induro Git 404L series tripod
    Gitzo GM 4552L Monopod
    Really Right Stuff BH-55 Ball Head
    Wimberley WH-200
    Mongoose 3.6 Gimbal
    Induro GHB - 1 Gimbal

Posted 27 April 2017 - 07:44 AM

Now you're cooking with the gas. The last image with the view to hillside beyond is really compelling. The cloud drama adds to it. I think it needs to be leveled.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users