# Amaryllis Finally Springs Out



## Slip (Jul 25, 2006)

Today is the first day of my amaryllis in full bloom. Decided to give a try of a photo of the bloom. Looks ok, but sure would like more detail from camera/lens. Guess I would have to spend much more money to get close to what some of the others here can capture. Anyway, see pics of Spring in Bloom

Slip,


----------



## Slip (Jul 25, 2006)

Any improvement suggestions mucho appreciated.


----------



## Arlon (Feb 8, 2005)

Hang a dark sheet or something on that back wall (resale shop black sheet is one of my std. props). Getting rid of the confusing background will do wonders for that picture. Flowers are great but the background needs work. Like the spray too. Also might try using the flash on the lowes manual setting for a little fill light.


----------



## Slip (Jul 25, 2006)

Thanks will try the black sheet thing next time. To me, the clarity if terrible and the spray just doesn't show up properly. Not sure what you mean using the flash on the lowes manual setting?
I adjusted the sharpness and other things and can't tell if it is too sharp or not. Was trying to get more detail, but just isn't showing up. Maybe the flash fill would help that? I'm just now sure what else is needed for the flower itself even with the background distracting.


----------



## samurai_ag (Mar 31, 2008)

i'm new here but i'm a big flower guy and i agree with the previous...with flowers the background makes the shot...and the water droplets are gorgeous but that flower is so pretty you almost don't need them....


but wow that is a pretty flower


----------



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

i'm going to stick my neck out and disagree with Arlon and samurai_ag re the background (at least on the first photo).

i think the bricks in the background make a stunning backdrop and i would _work with them_ to make an improved version.

firstly i would look at ensuring the horizon is level. i.e. the bricks are on a slight downward slope and that causes my eye to detract TO them rather than allowing them to blend behind the flowers in a more natural manner.

the flowers are just beautiful. i like the colour of the first two and am not sure what's happened to the colour in the third image - i'm still learning myself but i think you've changed the aperture which has allowed more light.

i also might try taking a black and white photo (from the same angle of the first photo), just to see how that would turn out. i find the juxtaposition of 'hard' flowers (normally considered 'soft') and the 'soft' brick wall (normally considered hard) a fascinating combination. but then, that's probably just the quirk in me.

whatever you're doing, you're doing better than me. so i'm going to be watching and learning from you. 

rosesm


----------



## samurai_ag (Mar 31, 2008)

i think you hit the nail on the head...even though that is a beautiful flower i think a black and white would look great


----------



## Slip (Jul 25, 2006)

Ok, I know this isn't exactly what was suggested, I did adjust a little to slightly tone down the background until I can take more with black background and better lighting, I did some work to see if it would improve some. The more I look at ones at first of post, the more and more I hate them. I like this one a little better, but will redo in next few days. See is any of you like this one better than top three????? Not as good as would been taken out of camera, but toning down background to me is better to verify Arlons original suggestion. Thanks and like I said before, I encourage any help.


----------



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

in a way it is what was suggested. the black takes away the distraction of a background. background distractions come when there is lots of detail. by blurring the background, you keep the 'natural' setting, but make the flower 'pop' out in front of it. the eye hits the main subject instantly and is not diverted to a busy background.

now i like the first _and_ the latest. 

(best times for natural lighting outside are the 'golden hour' - though here in NZ i find that anytime is fairly good except between about 11am and 4pm - the sunlight at that point here, blows out the white and gives a very harsh and hard look to colours)

you're certainly getting some very clear photos.


----------



## Arlon (Feb 8, 2005)

Here's an example of what I mean by using flash. This is a little extreme but it get the point across. This was on a fairly bright day and against a brick wall.. I used manual f stop set at f16 to make a VERY underexposed shot (shadows simply go black). Then add flash in manual mode until I get the exposure I want. If I used the flash in auto it would try getting the back ground to expose too and would over expose everything. By using the manual controls I could simply dial in the combination that works.

One example from a DSLR: F16, 1/1000 sec. with a manual hotshoe flash set at 1/16 power (work just as easily with the onboard flash).. Enough flash to reach the flower but not enough to reach the wall.










Here's a shot doing the same thing outside on a bright day. I just set a box (for shadow) behind the flower. Used max fstop (set in "manual" mode) on a little $125 P&S camera. Same result from a totally different camera. There was no flash used here, just direct sun on the flower and a self imposed shade behind it.










First picture has a brick wall for a background, second a box in front of carpet grass. If the background isn't distracting I don't try to hide it. There are a bunch of flower examples in this gallery HERE, might look through it to see if there is a style in there you like. If so, work on it a little. IM me with your camera type and I might be able to get more specific on manual controls if you have them. Some P&S cameras have very little you can control manually, most have at least some degree of manual control...


----------



## grayfish (Jul 31, 2005)

You mentioned that you sharpened the image and other things. I for one believe you went a little to far on the sharpening. Appears that you have a slight pixelation due to the sharpening. Not sure about the other things. Would love to see at least the first image with no post processing.


----------



## Slip (Jul 25, 2006)

gray, I agree, it is way too sharp in the first set of photos. First, I set the clarity in the Raw screen of Photoshop CS3 and then sharpened in the regular screen of Photoshop CS3. It looked better with full size photo and then resized. Looks way too sharp in smaller version and large is too sharp also, but doesn't look as bad as smaller version. The last post with single flower, had no clarity done and very little sharpening. I deleted the originals as I just wasn't happy with results. Other changes were mostly some color saturation and desaturation as well as a little Level adjustments. Not much else. To me, the last photo has more detail without much sharpening but played a lot with that just to see how it could have looked with less background as suggested. It was only for testing and besides, I like to play just to pay with Photoshop as I do some background removal work at my job for incident investigations and it aids in bringing out the main subject and take away for distracting objects, mostly piping in my Chemical Plant I work in. Easier for presentations to highlight main subjects.

Based on Arlons info (ps, PM Sent), I went opposite. I went with low aperature setting with no flash. I wanted to blurr out background some so I went with low setting. Didn't work. Will try higher aperature numbers next time to see difference. I did bracket and picked the best of the three on each shot.

Thanks for all your help & CC, I take advice well and want it.
Thanks, Slip


----------

