Photographing crocuses

[HClase]

I've noticed that there is a problem getting the right colour on the screen, especially for purplish crocuses.  Some posted pictures are clearly too blue and I have had the same problem myself.  So I've been experimenting, and I thought people might like to see the results.  My digital camera, a Nikon coolpix 5000, has a number of white balance settings, and while it's fiddly, especially when the sun keeps going in and out, it does seem to be important to get it right.  The "daylight" (sunlight) setting assumes a lot of yellow in the light and makes the pictures more blue, the shade setting seems to to go the other way and make them more yellow/orange and cloudy is in between.  The following pictures were all taken of my pot of C. banaticus while the sun was out, but in my own shadow.  The cloudy setting looks about right on my screen - but that's another variable of course different screens have different colour balances too!  You can also correct colour using a picture editor (I use Irfanview since it's free!), but these are untouched.

[Carlo]

You've hit on a common problem...and hinted at the only real solution.

I used to get fabulous blues from Fuji Sensia and Provia film. Now that I've gone digital (still have plenty of Provia in the fridge...), that's all out the window.

I shoot with a Nikon Dx2, and I've had pretty good success using the auto white balance feature (about the only auto function I use...). It is NOT that good with blues and purples, often appearing totally different than to the naked eye.

The solution: FIX IT. Photoshop and other programs that allow manipulation of white balance and color offer incredible tools for creating fantasy images---and fixing the color casts that creep into blue-challenged digital captures.

Did anyone really tell you all that digital photography is FASTER than film???

[Paul T]

Carlo,

No, but it is a darn sight cheaper!! 

[mark smyth]

Can I comment on angle of photography? To me the best angle to photograph a flat/wide open flower is from 45 degrees and not from vertical, looking down, but a vertical tight shot works for a single flower

[Paul T]

Mark,

I'd agree totally with that, with the only exception being if you're really trying to capture the roundness or radial symmetry or something like that.  Generally the shot from straight on loses a lot of depth of a flower, whereas the 45' angle gives a good view of everything and gives it all perspective.  That said, I still find myself so often photographing from right above and only realising later when I process the pics that I've got the "flat" shot by doing so (and so often the flowers are over by then so I can't get a better one.  ).  Good comment, Mark.

[Carlo]

Paul,

I don't find it to be cheaper to shoot digital than film...not by a long shot. If you value your time, digital turns out to be far more costly. While I love that I no longer have to buy film and get it developed, if you're doing anything more than point-and-shoot, there is an incredible amount of time involved (learning new computer programs for optimizing captures and cataloguing the finished output, etc.). You can't forget the $$$ spent on computer storage, which will be a regular expense as you take more pictures, and periodically replace the hard drives that store them.

No...I wouldn't say it's cheaper, but the flexibility and opportunities digital photography afford make it worth the while...

[Carlo]

Here's where Paul's "digital is cheaper" thought really comes into play...

From above or at 45 degrees? SHOOT THEM BOTH! Each will have it's own use and, for a given flower, may be preferred. Lots of flowers won't reveal their private bits if shot at 45, whereas an overhead shot shows them in all their glory. If you need to see pistils and stamens, you might not have an option!

[HClase]

I also generally try to get a variety of angles.  The main problem with my Coolpix 5000 is that the automatic focus often doesn't work unless there's a flat surface to focus on, and the manual focus is tricky with my eyes and the rather small screen (but at least it rotates to more or less any angle).  It's inevitable, too, that some part of the flower will be out of focus on an angled closeup.   How do you find it Mark?  This picture illustrates my points I think.

Another point is that while the Coolpix can focus down to 1 cm the lens is very wide angle in the closeup setting and gives a fish-eye effect which makes the flower look more open than it really is.  I guess no picture is quite like the real thing!

I'd never go back to film for closeups, although there is more detail in the views on some old slides I've been scanning (Coolscan V) than I'd ever get with a 5 MPix digital!   I know there are bigger and better ones these days, but I do find the relative compactness handy in the field (I do wild as well as garden flowers.)

[Paul T]

Here's where Paul's "digital is cheaper" thought really comes into play...

From above or at 45 degrees? SHOOT THEM BOTH! Each will have it's own use and, for a given flower, may be preferred. Lots of flowers won't reveal their private bits if shot at 45, whereas an overhead shot shows them in all their glory. If you need to see pistils and stamens, you might not have an option!

Carlo,

Mark's comment was regarding "flat/wide open" flowers.  My first thought was re throat markings etc, but with a flat/wide open flower that doesn't come into play.  With a more closed flower, straight into the face is the only way to capture the inside.

[Gerry Webster]

I'm a newcomer to the digital macrophotography of flowers. Using a Canon Powershot A720 IS on 'auto',  the results I get are very hit & miss. Some images are more-or-less acceptable, some are really poor, most are  mediocre. Moving away from 'auto' & playing around with the controls (eg white balance) doesn't seem to help. Can anyone recommend a child's/idiot's guide either on the web or in print?

[HClase]

Gerry,

It all depends how much time you have.  I'd recommend experimenting, taking a few similar shots with different settings (as my collection in the first item) and looking at the results.

Another point to remember is the reply given by an old nature photographer friend when asked "How is it all your pictures are so good?"  He replied, "They aren't, I only show the good ones."   Much easier to do with digital - I regularly delete 50-80% of mine once I get them on to the computer.

[Gerry Webster]

Gerry,
- I regularly delete 50-80% of mine once I get them on to the computer.

Thanks Howard, that's encouraging. I'm currently deleting about 90% of mine. I hope to improve!

[Paul T]

I ALWAYS take more than one photo of anything with my digital.  I often take slightly different angles just to see which works out better.  I find that sometimes my camera struggles with the light so I then point it at something else to "reset" everything for a different picture, then bring it back to the original item.... this forces it to start from scratch again and often the light settings are better.  Often finding something (like finger for example) and putting it next to the flower you're trying to photograph gives it something to work out where you're wanting the focus of your shot.  The auto-focus cameras can be a real problem for focusing on the background instead of the item you want.... holding a couple of fingers up next to the flower, focusing on them, then shifting the camera back to the original item helps it work out where you wanted to focus in the first place  But I find that generally you need to refocus on that item again after doing that or you'll get the light settings for your skin instead of what you were actually wanting.  Sometimes, as mentioned elsewhere, this is a good thing for getting around colour balances and light settings, but sometimes it can result in a dark photo because you'd focused on your bright skin.  I'm just talking about using the fingers here to help the camera work out what length you're trying to actually focus it.  Doing this a couple of times and taking a few different pictures tends to mean that you're more likely to get one that works. 

Experimenting with your own camera is I think better than reading about it somewhere, as your camera is what you are working with whereas the books tend to be generic and try to cater for everything (or else are too specific and don't actually cater to your own camera).  Good luck with the learning curve.... the effort is well worth it.   

[Paddy Tobin]

Paul,

From my own experience, I always use manual focus when taking close-up photographs of flowers and also set to aperture priority, setting a very narrow aperture to give best depth of field.

Lighting is often a difficutly; too strong sunlight can effect the colour cast on the petals while too dull a light can leave the colour quite dull. Early morning and late afternoon/early evening I find give the best results. Of course, taking the flowers indoors and photographing  under lights gives very controlled lighting conditions which can be easier to use to give guaranteed and regularly reliable results. Nothing beats natural light however.

Paddy

[TC]

There are things to be said for both film and digital.  I used slide film for about 50 years and have finally moved over to digital with no regrets.
No matter which brand of film I used, and laboratory, I had a good percentage of films damaged in processing and several lost in the post..
Exposure is always difficult with slide film as it is very unforgiving.  Add to this, colour casts which can spoil an otherwise good picture.  There was also the problem of blue flowers looking reddish as the film responded to the red spectrum mainly un-noticed by the human eye. Add to this the bother of carrying a load of film while on holiday and having to wait on your return to find that you had messed up an unrepeatable shot.  I now have one 4Gb, and 3 2Gb compact flash cards.  This gives me the option to shoot approx. 1,700 jpegs at 10.3 Mb -  the equivalent of 40 films.  Forty films including processing would cost about £280 and a good percentage would be thrown in the bin.  With digital, I can see immediately if the picture is worth keeping or re-shoot until I get it right.

However, I have started to scan my old slides and negatives and have been heartened to see the quality of Fuji Velvia scans at maximum resolution.  I have a few I scanned as 80 Gb files which  could be printed at about 5 feet by 3 feet.  I have repaired slides with heavy scratches, dirt and bad colour casts which  haven't been able to view for over 40 years.  All in all. I am a fan of digital.