# Still practicing. Parking lot flowers.



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

These were shot right at daybreak at West Oaks mall. Conditions were a little challenging especially with mall security watching me.


----------



## madf1man (Jan 28, 2005)

Purrty!


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

I bought a rose just to try something in a controlled environment. It hasen't puffed out yet. Just something to shoot.


----------



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

oh dear, you bought a flower? you are now another step up the ladder of No Return. 

as for C&C - i prefer the controlled environment image (the last). on my screen, the colours on the other images appear a little (slightly) odd.

you took a squirty water bottle with you? i'll tell you why i ask. in the third image, there is water up inside the flower blossom. for the angle the photo is taken on, i wouldn't expect there to be water inside the flower. hope that makes sense. please ask if it doesn't and i'll find a better way to say it. 

rosesm


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

Koru said:


> oh dear, you bought a flower? you are now another step up the ladder of No Return.
> 
> as for C&C - i prefer the controlled environment image (the last). on my screen, the colours on the other images appear a little (slightly) odd.
> 
> ...


Thanks Karen. As far as the colors go, I went a little extreem playing around with post processing, (which is rare for me), just to see what comes out and I kind of rushed through it. I found some options I didn't know I had and just had to play with them. :spineyes: I think what I need to do is to take more time setting up for my shots and/or, actually look for something more worthwhile to shoot. I got lazy and did the shots within 100 yards from where I sit. Houston Texas is not known for being pretty. lol

I did NOT, I repeat, I DID NOT pull an Arlon and used a spray bottle!  :slimer:

Those flowers were in a tiny little asphalt island in the middle of a mall parking lot with sprinklers. Thats the way I found it.

And yes, I took those shots on purpose. LOL!


----------



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

so you're saying your middle name is not Arlon? 

by the way, Houston is pretty. you just need to know how to look at it. *smile*

rosesm


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

Ok, I settled down a litte bit and just cleaned up some shots without going overboard with post processing. These are pretty much right out of camera.


----------



## Gator_Nutz (Sep 27, 2006)

The post processing is still not doing it for me on these Gary. I love photographing flowers and do it quite often. The challenge, for me anyway, is trying to not only get a good composition, but also to try and bring out some of the beautiful textures and details. It can be very challenging. I think your pictures have a lot of this detail and texture that you have just not quite brought out for us yet and it leaves them quite flat and two dimensional. Just as you can over-expose and "blow out" highlights, you can also blow out color channels. I think that is a lot of what is going on here. The colors are just too hot, especially the first two, and you are losing a lot of what I think makes these flowers so beautiful. Now, if the true detail and texture in the flowers is not what you are looking to show us, and instead you are just experimenting with colors, saturation, sharpening, etc., then forget what I just said. Whatever the case, keep practicing and keep posting your photos. I really enjoy watching new photographers discover new things.
James


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

Gator_Nutz said:


> The post processing is still not doing it for me on these Gary. I love photographing flowers and do it quite often. The challenge, for me anyway, is trying to not only get a good composition, but also to try and bring out some of the beautiful textures and details. It can be very challenging. I think your pictures have a lot of this detail and texture that you have just not quite brought out for us yet and it leaves them quite flat and two dimensional. Just as you can over-expose and "blow out" highlights, you can also blow out color channels. I think that is a lot of what is going on here. The colors are just too hot, especially the first two, and you are losing a lot of what I think makes these flowers so beautiful. Now, if the true detail and texture in the flowers is not what you are looking to show us, and instead you are just experimenting with colors, saturation, sharpening, etc., then forget what I just said. Whatever the case, keep practicing and keep posting your photos. I really enjoy watching new photographers discover new things.
> James


I see what your saying and am glad you said something. I think I may be developing a bad habit. I've been bumping up the saturation on the camera because I like the way this camera seems to make colors "explode" and may be forgetting I should be recording what my eye actually sees.

I appreciate the C&C and please, nobody ever feel like they have to sugarcoat it for me. I have very thick skin and sometimes I wont learn unless somebody hits me over the head. lol And it makes me work harder to get better!

I love this forum! 

Thanks!


----------



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

i just looked at the exif for the controlled environment flower (133web) and one other (092web4). the data is the same except for the shutter speed. on the controlled flower you've got it set at -4.32TV and on the other, 3.91 TV.

how do you get that - setting? i'd like to see if i can do the same with my Nikon.


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

Koru said:


> i just looked at the exif for the controlled environment flower (133web) and one other (092web4). the data is the same except for the shutter speed. on the controlled flower you've got it set at -4.32TV and on the other, 3.91 TV.
> 
> how do you get that - setting? i'd like to see if i can do the same with my Nikon.


Whats TV?


----------



## madf1man (Jan 28, 2005)

Thats Nikon talk for (time value) I think


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

madf1man said:


> Thats Nikon talk for (time value) I think


I dont belive I ever used that function. I dont know how it showed up on my exif files.


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

Arggh. My flower died and I cant seem to do much with what I shot yesterday. Guess Ill have to go out again tomarrow. l-)


----------



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

Gary said:


> Whats TV?


i have no idea. it showed up on your exif, so i typed it. have you checked your manual?


----------



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

Gary said:


> Arggh. My flower died and I cant seem to do much with what I shot yesterday. Guess Ill have to go out again tomarrow. l-)


your middle names are now 'Arlon James'. (they go out and buy flowers for their spouses - well, that's what they tell their spouses.  i love getting to see the flowers they're given.  )

by the way, that's a beautiful photo.


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

Koru said:


> i have no idea. it showed up on your exif, so i typed it. have you checked your manual?


Yes maam. I've worn the manual out reading it. What threw me was TV because I have never used it and it didn't ring a bell at the time you mentioned it. I checked my version of the exif file on the controlled version of the rose and reads... f.5.6. Exposure at 20 seconds, iso 100 with focal length at 55mm. Manual mode with AWB.

I wonder if something is wrong? I have never used TV.


----------



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

Gary said:


> Yes maam. I've worn the manual out reading it. What threw me was TV because I have never used it and it didn't ring a bell at the time you mentioned it. I checked my version of the exif file on the controlled version of the rose and reads... f.5.6. Exposure at 20 seconds, iso 100 with focal length at 55mm. Manual mode with AWB.
> 
> I wonder if something is wrong? I have never used TV.


i doubt anything's wrong. just me not knowing your settings *smile* i've attached a copy of the exif as it shows on my computer...


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

Got me Karen! I have no idea how that negative TV value works or why it showed up. How's this pic look? I'm not a flower'y kind of guy. lol


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

I went back out again and took another 137 shots. Still very overcast and even foggy.


----------



## Gator_Nutz (Sep 27, 2006)

Well your progress, to me anyway, is remarkable. You see so much more detail in some of these than your others you posted. 1,2, and 4 in this group are very nice. These now have a depth and clarity that make them stand out come off of the screen instead of laying there looking flat. Nice work. Now...do you own a flash? Outside and yes, on overcast days like today, a little fill flash can sometimes dramatically improve a shot. This will be something else for you to start experimenting with just to see more results that are always available to you. 

One more thing. Try getting down on a different level sometimes and show us a different angle of view. When we walk through a garden, usually we are standing tall above the flowers and looking down at them. This seems to be the view we are getting in these shots. It is sometimes more intriguing to the viewer to see a different angle than we are normally accustomed to seeing. Just a thought that someone once gave me and I find it very true in a lot of instances.
James


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

Gator_Nutz said:


> Well your progress, to me anyway, is remarkable. You see so much more detail in some of these than your others you posted. 1,2, and 4 in this group are very nice. These now have a depth and clarity that make them stand out come off of the screen instead of laying there looking flat. Nice work. Now...do you own a flash? Outside and yes, on overcast days like today, a little fill flash can sometimes dramatically improve a shot. This will be something else for you to start experimenting with just to see more results that are always available to you.
> 
> One more thing. Try getting down on a different level sometimes and show us a different angle of view. When we walk through a garden, usually we are standing tall above the flowers and looking down at them. This seems to be the view we are getting in these shots. It is sometimes more intriguing to the viewer to see a different angle than we are normally accustomed to seeing. Just a thought that someone once gave me and I find it very true in a lot of instances.
> James


I only have the onboard flash and Canon is known for a poor onboard flash so I didnt even try it today. But I was thinking that fill flash would of been nice on a day like today. However, they are expensive! Thats gonna have to wait for awhile as I might as well add a battery grip at the same time for the extra juice itll take to power it. IMO I need to spend that money on better glass first. The lens I was using is a kit lens, Canon EFS 18-55 f/3.5-5.6is that cost me $170. Im pretty surprised how good the lens works for the money though. I cant blame anything that comes out wrong on the lens. _However, _better glass wont hurt and will be my first priority.

As far as the angles go, I was thinking about that also. The problem was the sprinklers around those flowers. They must go off early in the mornings because the ground around them was muddy and I didnt feel like laying down, kneeling or sitting in the mud. Two other things that crossed my mind. The first being I was in a mall parking lot. The sign says something about trespassing and customers only kinda thing. lol. So I was in and out as fast as I could without getting in trouble. (I have a knack for that sometimes. )

Secondly, since I didnt have alot of time there I thought I would concentrate on the technical side rather than the artsy side of photography. Get in, take as many shots as I can and get out before those white security pick up trucks converge on me with the police. Yikes!


----------



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

Gary said:


> Got me Karen! I have no idea how that negative TV value works or why it showed up. How's this pic look? I'm not a flower'y kind of guy. lol


i like this pic! a lot!

one thought for you. i think i'd prefer to see the O.S. at the top in focus too. i love the b&w.

in your next flower series, i like #1, #2, #4 and #5. they're all sharp in the right places. #4 and #5 are my absolute favourites. you've captured the whole flower and leafs plus have some interest in the background. #1 would have been perfect with the complete leaf show and the whole of the bud.

sure looks like you're jumping forward in leaps and bounds. it's awesome to watch. thank you for sharing.


----------

