Snowdrops

GardenersHelper

In Memoriam
Messages
6,344
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
These are from our garden this afternoon. They were stacked in Helicon Focus from post focus videos captured hand-held with a Panasonic G9 and Olympus 60mm macro, and finished in Lightroom.

Our snowdrops are multiplying. For context, here are some of the clumps. My wife preferred this one ...


1444 09b P1014158 G9+60 HH PFS44f F2.8 1-250 ISO400 EV-1 C3 LR 1100h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

... rather than this one, which I did first and showed her, but she said she would rather see it all in focus. I was doubtful as to whether that would work, but I was pleasantly surprised.


1444 09a P1014158 G9+60 HH PFS15f F2.8 1-250 ISO400 EV-1 C3 LR 1100h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Now some close-ups.


1444 07 P1014146 G9+60 HH PFS42f F2.8 1-125 ISO400 EV-0.3 C3 LR 1100h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1444 08 P1014149 G9+60 HH PFS53f F2.8 1-160 ISO400 EV-1 B22,3+i LR 1100h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1444 10 P1014161 G9+60 HH PFS55f F2.8 1-250 ISO400 EV-1 B22,3 LR 1100h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I think they are good, better than I could do, particularly the first one (as my garden isn't that nice, I could never get that). The only thing is that the close ups are not as good as some of your other flower close ups. Still nice though.
 
I think they are good, better than I could do, particularly the first one (as my garden isn't that nice, I could never get that). The only thing is that the close ups are not as good as some of your other flower close ups. Still nice though.

Thanks David. I'm very fortunate to have the subject matter I do in our garden, thanks to my wife.

Could you help me and point out what you are seeing/not seeing with the close-ups? (I'm always looking for ways to improve.) I would appreciate that. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Thanks David. I'm very fortunate to have the subject matter I do in our garden, thanks to my wife.

Could you help me and point out what you are seeing/not seeing with the close-ups? (I'm always looking for ways to improve.) I would appreciate that. Thanks.
I think these photos for example
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/45551740335/

View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/32135148597/in/dateposted/

Are sharper than your snowdrop close ups , it could be just me. I would guess that the difference is the light. It could also be the subject in that snow drops don't have the folds etc which make it easier to show fine detail.

This snowdrop photo doesn't have the same sharp leaves as your other photos do.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/32135147937/

Saying that they all look pretty good - I wouldn't be unhappy with them.

However this snowdrop photolooks much better in flickr than in your post so the problem is the forum software not the photo - my mistake I should have checked that, sorry.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/46353292344/
 
In 1 vs 2 I think I will side with your wife. Things have to get far more out of focus to convince me - I don't like "in between" or "not enough" options. The stones are getting a little in a way and it could get a whole lot brighter.
 
I think these photos for example
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/45551740335/

View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/32135148597/in/dateposted/

Are sharper than your snowdrop close ups , it could be just me. I would guess that the difference is the light. It could also be the subject in that snow drops don't have the folds etc which make it easier to show fine detail.

This snowdrop photo doesn't have the same sharp leaves as your other photos do.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/32135147937/

Saying that they all look pretty good - I wouldn't be unhappy with them.

However this snowdrop photolooks much better in flickr than in your post so the problem is the forum software not the photo - my mistake I should have checked that, sorry.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/46353292344/

This gets so complicated - and so confusing! Using Chrome, I just went to the bottom link in your post and took a screenshot of the image using Greenshot. It is 992 pixels high. I then took a screenshot of the version in the top post in this thread. It is 1026 pixels high. I then went to Flickr and took a screenshot of the "Large" size version of the image, which is shown by Flickr as being 1024 pixels high, but the screenshot is 1026 pixels high.

I compared the screenshots by using two at a time in Faststone Image Viewer, going quickly and repeatedly back and forth between two versions while keeping my eye on the same area of the image; this makes differences stand our more than moving your eye between two versions on the same page. I could not see any difference between the two 1026 pixel high versions, which makes sense because for the top post I used the Flickr "Large" version.

When I compared the one I got through your link with either of the 1026 pixel high versions the 1026 high version looked sharper to me. However, it was also a bit larger and I don't know whether that was affecting my impression of the sharpness/detail. After all, you can see more detail in a larger version, but there wasn't too much of a difference in the size, so would that make that much difference? I don't know.

Anyway, for whatever reason it seems as though we are seeing something different. The posted version looks sharper to me than the Flickr version in your link (which is the opposite of what you saw), and the posted version looks the same to me as the "Large" version at Flickr.

Perhaps I've got myself confused here. Wouldn't be the first time! Anyway, for what it is worth, here are the three screenshots, all shown here as "Original" from Flickr, and can be downloaded from Flickr.


Clipped from screen, two snowdrops at Flickr from davholla link, is 992 high, in Chrome
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


Clipped from screen, two snowdrops at Flickr Large 1024h version, is 1026 high, in Chrome
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


Clipped from screen, two snowdrops at TP, is 1026 high, in Chrome
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
 
Me, I love the close ups Nick, always very well done and so clean looking.
 
Anyway, for whatever reason it seems as though we are seeing something different. The posted version looks sharper to me than the Flickr version in your link (which is the opposite of what you saw), and the posted version looks the same to me as the "Large" version at Flickr.
It could be my mistake, they are nice photos and ones no one would be unhappy to get.
I often find photos on the forum can lose something from flickr.
 
It could be my mistake, they are nice photos and ones no one would be unhappy to get.
I often find photos on the forum can lose something from flickr.

Yes, perhaps there are resizing issues, or perhaps something more obscure. I started out doing comparisons like those I discussed above but on the wrong image. And for that one I thought that the screenshot from Flickr of the image downsized by Flickr from 1100 high to 1024 high was sharper than a screenshot from Faststone of a 1024 high version on my PC produced directly from Lightroom at that size, with Lightroom "Standard" output sharpening.

Another issue I ran into previously was that I had resized the text in my browser to read something better and not put it back to the default setting, and images were getting resized too, in that case by the browser. This time I checked that wasn't happening.

It gets very, very complicated.
 
In 1 vs 2 I think I will side with your wife. Things have to get far more out of focus to convince me - I don't like "in between" or "not enough" options.

That makes sense. I did wonder about the shallower version when I did it, but thought it was ok on balance. Having done the deeper version though, I do prefer it.

The stones are getting a little in a way

Yes, I didn't notice them. I saw the wall of course, but given the scene framing options I had to live with that. The stones though, it would have been better to move them.

and it could get a whole lot brighter.

I played with that before posting, and have done so again after reading your comment. I didn't yet find a way to brighten the scene further without either blowing out the snowdrops (they are already just starting to clip) or alternatively making the image go flat and/or take on tonality that I didn't like. As you can see below I pulled the shadows up as much as Lightroom would let me. I tried various combinations of bringing the Blacks up, Whites down, Highlights down further, Exposure up further but I wasn't comfortable with any of them. I would be happy to provide the stack TIFF as it came out of Helicon Focus if you would like to process it.


Snowdrops in Lightroom
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
 
I'd leave shadows at +50% max, ideally no more than +30% as it tends to give that tone-mapped HDR look.

Just push the exposure up and LR is now very good at highlight recovery to bring it back. Far more natural than playing with their shadow recovery.
 
I'd leave shadows at +50% max, ideally no more than +30% as it tends to give that tone-mapped HDR look.

Just push the exposure up and LR is now very good at highlight recovery to bring it back. Far more natural than playing with their shadow recovery.

Thanks for the specific suggestions. That is extremely helpful. How does this strike you? (Lightroom settings shown below.)


1444 09b1 P1014158 G9+60 PF44f F2.8 1-250 ISO400 EV-1 C3 Ex+1.19 Hi-100 Sh+50 LR 1100h_
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1444 09b1 Lightroom adjustments
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Or here is one with Shadows limited to +30%, and Exposure increased more.


1444 09b2 P1014158 G9+60 PF44f F2.8 1-250 ISO400 EV-1 C3 Ex+1.39 Hi-100 Sh+30 LR 1100h_
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1444 09b2 Lightroom adjustments
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
 
I've noticed that they seem to photograph better without sun as they are so glarey, however for en masse effect, patches of sunlight and backlit is nice.
 
I've noticed that they seem to photograph better without sun as they are so glarey, however for en masse effect, patches of sunlight and backlit is nice.

Yes indeed, I love using patches of sunlight. These would be particularly difficult to handle in the sun I imagine with the glarey whites. Lots of under-exposure needed to protect them, leaving the image overall very dark and needing a lot of raising. Presumably this is the sort of scene where a larger sensor camera capable of handling a larger dynamic range might make it easier to handle.
 
Yes indeed, I love using patches of sunlight. These would be particularly difficult to handle in the sun I imagine with the glarey whites. Lots of under-exposure needed to protect them, leaving the image overall very dark and needing a lot of raising. Presumably this is the sort of scene where a larger sensor camera capable of handling a larger dynamic range might make it easier to handle.
I wonder what they would look like under moonlight and a very very long shutter speed (not tried it). There is a church near me with lots of snowdrops maybe one year I will try this and get the church in as well, not this year I am recovering from the flu).
 
Last edited:
I wonder what they would look like under moonlight and a very very long shutter speed (not tried it). There is a church near me with lots of snowdrops maybe one year I will try this and get the church in as well, not this year I am recovering from the flu).

Sorry to hear about the flu. I hope you recover fully very soon.

Interesting idea about a moonlight shot. I haven't done a night session for ages. I might try that again when the invertebrates return (oh, I do hope they return, the recent news about that was depressing, and aligned with my experience over the past decade - a big reduction in numbers and variety, in our garden and at the local nature reserves I visit.)
 
Back
Top