Would like some critique please...

Mr. Quiet

Took this with my faithful 90mm macro...

ecowarrior

Not sure I'm totally qualified to give feedback, but here's what I think.

I like the picture, I can see what you were trying to achieve, and I like minimalism of which this is a fairly good example.

I kinda think the space on the right is TOO large though. I'm not sure, it kinda doesn't feel right to me somehow - something tells me there needs to be something here, even if it's a slightly different colour or something to break up the space just a little. Not sure. Perhaps it needs less 'space' in this instance.

I appreciate that macro photography never usually has a great DOF, at least without focus stacking, but your photo seems to be suffering from a lack of focus point. What I mean is my eye isn't drawn to anywhere that is in focus, though I'm sure it's there. Maybe it's my eyes, maybe it's just the size of the photo on screen. Can't tell.

Overall, I like it, it's pleasant to look at, it's not one I'd put on my wall.

Hope that helps.

clicketf3

I agree with Ecowarrior
Too much empty space on the right side.Great colors though.

Mr. Quiet

Does this version do anything different for you guys?

Lord Vetinari

LOvely colour and light and compositions !
Do prefer #2 - #1 is interesting but keep expecting to see something written on the RHS (ie looks like an advert layout).
Brian V.

ecowarrior

Yes, number 2 is much better.

Mr. Quiet

Lord Vetinari wrote:

LOvely colour and light and compositions !
Do prefer #2 - #1 is interesting but keep expecting to see something written on the RHS (ie looks like an advert layout).
Brian V.

What does RHS mean?

inthesmoke

Mr. Quiet wrote:

What does RHS mean?

Right-Hand-Side

Mr. Quiet

inthesmoke wrote:

Right-Hand-Side

Thank you

GOLDENORFE

2 nd version much better!
cant work out why you cropped like #1
nice light .

phil

Mr. Quiet

I like minimalism and negative space. I thought maybe with that crop it would draw the view even more into the flower?

mehampson

I can see what you mean. The first crop was a bit too much for what you were going for, I think, in the sense that there was so much negative space that it was drawing my eye away from the flower. A less extreme crop would probably hit the mark.

If you have a program with content-aware scaling, you could try to "crop up" to a pano aspect ratio. Then you'd have a lot of negative space on both sides, but since you'd still have the whole flower and branch, they could compete for eye-time better.

NeilL

I think you wanted an intimate feeling in #1 version, and I know that is part of your style. You still get quite enough intimacy in #2 version. I like both versions quite a lot, it's not the crops that are so important, I think. For me the difficulty with v1 is whether to look at the stigma or the petals behind, I can't settle on either or both. In the context of the whole flower in v2, that's a DOF problem.

Looks like you had plenty of light, and while the top half of v2 has plenty of dynamic range (nice textured 3D sculpted look), the bottom half is flat and lacking detail, which is not only a DOF thing, but also an exposure thing.

What aperture were you using? If you did have plenty of light you could have set a minus Ev value to underexpose slightly, so get more saturation and detail in the flower. Bring it up a little later in post. Also you could have used a smaller aperture to get most of the central area of the flower in good focus, so helping it to hold together better for the eye. You would then have needed a slower shutter, and thus a tripod, mirror lockup, remote release. But this was a stationary subject, so a slower shutter could have been used. Also, did you consult a DOF chart for the focal length of your lens, or use DOF preview, to know beforehand what would be in and out of focus?

One more comment I would make is to diversify your lighting source. Instead of just one light source you could use a reflector as well, or a(nother) flash. Controlling light is a fundamental of all photography. In this kind of shot, the more light and light sources you have (of differing strengths) the more opportunities you have to give the subject impact and character.

Maybe sometimes to produce something with elegant Zen-like intimacy and minimalism requires a very complex process, a kind of distillation of simplicity from complexity.

Neil

Mr. Quiet

Yes, I did use the DOF preview, that is why I took the picture:D On the DOF thing, I must disagree with you. But I will agree with you about the bottom half of the flower looking less dynamic or "flat" then it should be. That is point that I have never noticed before, thanks for bringing my attention to it friend!