Some flowers from last March

[GardenersHelper]

I have processed the last two sets in my backlog for March last year. Here are some images from those two sessions, captured hand-held in our garden using my 70D and 55-250 STM, some with and some without a Canon 500D close-up lens. The raw files were processed in Silkypix. The first three and last two were also processed in Lightroom. There are 1300 pixel high versions in this album and this album at Flickr.

#1

1067 01 2016_03_17 IMG_7945 SP7 LR6 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#2

1067 10 2016_03_17 IMG_8004 SP7 LR6 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#3

1067 11 2016_03_17 IMG_8008 SP7 LR6 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#4

1066 14 2016_03_14 IMG_7807 SP7 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#5

1066 16 2016_03_14 IMG_7813 SP7 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#6

1066 07 2016_03_14 IMG_7761 SP7 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#7

1067 08 2016_03_17 IMG_7990 SP7 LR6 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#8

1067 24 2016_03_17 IMG_8104 SP7 LR6 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

 

[petersmart]

Good shots on all but my pick is #1.

The flower stands out perfectly from the b/g and looks lovely.

However, (and this is just me viewing it on a Samsung 40" TV) I feel it could do with slightly more black in the b/g to make it stand out more.

The others I would class as reasonable more than anything else.

But I do know how difficult it is to get good pictures of flowers which is one reason I usually try to cut then and then photograph them indoors if possible.

Or even grow my own indoors!

And I have never yet found a perfect bluebell, all mine usually end in the bin!
.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Good shots on all but my pick is #1.

Thank you.

The flower stands out perfectly from the b/g and looks lovely.

However, (and this is just me viewing it on a Samsung 40" TV) I feel it could do with slightly more black in the b/g to make it stand out more.

We have a difference in taste here. I lightened the background a little to make it less black (I view on a calibrated monitor in subdued light btw).

I am generally not keen on black backgrounds; by and large they look artificial and unappealing to me, apart from a few naturally high contrast situations.

The others I would class as reasonable more than anything else.

But I do know how difficult it is to get good pictures of flowers which is one reason I usually try to cut then and then photograph them indoors if possible.

Again, not to my taste. I never do that. I prefer to see plants in their natural environment. I also prefer to follow plants through their natural life cycle; I find seed pods, berries and decaying plant material can be just as photogenic as flowers.

For me flower images are, at best, as much about light as about colour, texture and shape, and out of doors, especially in a breeze, there can be a random play of light, colour and shape, from second to second, from hour to hour and from day to day, that you don't get indoors.

I also prefer something going on in the backgrounds. To me flower images are as much about the relationships, the contrast and complementarity of subject and background, in terms of shapes, light and colours, of which there can be very little indoors, especially if a plain background is used.

Or even grow my own indoors!

And I have never yet found a perfect bluebell, all mine usually end in the bin!
.

It is a pity, to my way of thinking, that you find nature so unsatisfactory in what it offers. It must greatly restrict your photo opportunities. In contrast, I am fortunate in greatly enjoying and appreciating the variety that nature offers.

 

[petersmart]

Thank you.

We have a difference in taste here. I lightened the background a little to make it less black (I view on a calibrated monitor in subdued light btw).

I am generally not keen on black backgrounds; by and large they look artificial and unappealing to me, apart from a few naturally high contrast situations.

Well I must admit I do like black B/Gs as a means of isolating the main subject, but of course almost all photography is, to a larger or smaller degree, subjective so I cannot argue with what you like, just that I prefer something slightly different.

Again, not to my taste. I never do that. I prefer to see plants in their natural environment. I also prefer to follow plants through their natural life cycle; I find seed pods, berries and decaying plant material can be just as photogenic as flowers.

For me flower images are, at best, as much about light as about colour, texture and shape, and out of doors, especially in a breeze, there can be a random play of light, colour and shape, from second to second, from hour to hour and from day to day, that you don't get indoors.

I also prefer something going on in the backgrounds. To me flower images are as much about the relationships, the contrast and complementarity of subject and background, in terms of shapes, light and colours, of which there can be very little indoors, especially if a plain background is used.

Well I have pictures of some plants and flowers taken indoors which I think look a lot better simply because it would have been almost impossible to photograph them outdoors and get a decent picture but again every one to his own.

It is a pity, to my way of thinking, that you find nature so unsatisfactory in what it offers. It must greatly restrict your photo opportunities. In contrast, I am fortunate in greatly enjoying and appreciating the variety that nature offers.

I don't find nature unsatisfactory at all, like you I greatly enjoy its infinite varieties but for me concentrating on a single flower, or leaf, or insect, can help to reveal a beauty which otherwise we might miss.

Here are some examples:

​

​

​

​

And finally one shot in the wild maybe the best bluebell I ever managed to get:

​

Which for some reason I cannot define I still find unsatisfactory - but that might just be me

 

[Cloudforest]

A nice set Nick. I like the Snowdrop #5 and the light on the Camellia #6 though if it were mine I'd be tempted to darken the out of focus highlights in the background.

 

[lightshipman]

you can't beat nataural lighting.

 

[GardenersHelper]

A nice set Nick. I like the Snowdrop #5 and the light on the Camellia #6 though if it were mine I'd be tempted to darken the out of focus highlights in the background.

Thanks Pete. I think balancing subject and background is very much a matter of personal taste. I prefer busier backgrounds than a lot of people, quite probably than most people. The busyness includes intensity as well as shapes and textures. Because of that I imagine that overall my images look flatter than is to the taste of many or most people.

IMO we should each shoot and process to our own preferences (unless doing it for a client of course, or are seeking maximum clicks/likes or whatever, which I'm not, so I can happily plough my own furrow. ). I enjoy seeing the sometimes very different ways people interpret their scenes and subjects.

 

[GardenersHelper]

you can't beat nataural lighting.

I agree, for botanical subjects. I almost never use flash, even fill flash, for flowers, buds, seed pods, foliage etc.

Invertebrates are a different matter. I almost always use flash for anything the size of house flies or smaller and, of course, at night. (Well, flash in the past. I may use an LCD light some of the time in future, for invertebrate focus bracketing for stacks).

 

[Cloudforest]

Thanks Pete. I think balancing subject and background is very much a matter of personal taste. I prefer busier backgrounds than a lot of people, quite probably than most people. The busyness includes intensity as well as shapes and textures. Because of that I imagine that overall my images look flatter than is to the taste of many or most people.

IMO we should each shoot and process to our own preferences (unless doing it for a client of course, or are seeking maximum clicks/likes or whatever, which I'm not, so I can happily plough my own furrow. ). I enjoy seeing the sometimes very different ways people interpret their scenes and subjects.

Can't fault that approach Nick, I think more people should be happy to 'plough their own furrow' and worry a bit less about whether their pictures meet with the approval of others.

 

[ChrisA]

The rose in number 6 is the best for me - as I love the light on it. Hopefully soon they will be flowers this year to take. Seen a few snowdrops popping up locally.

 

[GardenersHelper]

The rose in number 6 is the best for me - as I love the light on it.

Thanks Chris. It is a camellia. The light was coming through moving foliage and was continually changing. I love it when that happens. The album that one came from has half a dozen of that flower with different light.

Unfortunately we won't have as much of that in future as we lost two of our best trees last autumn. My wife's tiny "woodland garden" isn't a woodland garden any more, now being open to the skies.

Hopefully soon they will be flowers this year to take. Seen a few snowdrops popping up locally.

We've got one clump of snowdrops out at the moment. There were three flowers on one camellia and one each on two others, but they all got burned by the frost and aren't a pretty sight. Lots of buds on the camellias though, some looking like they might open up any day now. The buds on one of the hellebores have just started to open up - but the flowers are hidden amongst the plant's leaves and not photographable.