Study of a wild rose

[aekonet]

This morning I discovered one blossom of a wild rose in my garden.
Compared with noble rose wild roses are rather inconspicuous, because the blossoms are much smaller and mostly white or pink. Nevertheless, I like them because they do not care and grow where they want - just wild (and thus fit well in my garden)



br aekonet

[Daisy Mae]

Really lovely and I quite agree with you that they have a beauty of their own...simple and unsophisticated, little 'jewels' in hedgerows and the like. Underestimated beauty.

I take flower shots myself and am interested as to how you captured quite so many raindrops? Can I assume to took this outdoors and then blacked out the background? If you brought it indoors you would have needed an amazingly steady hand to keep all the droplets.lol

Can I also enquire as to why you chose not to use the natural background for such a very 'natural' plant. Was this a deliberate choice to juxtapose nature with a very stylised and unnatural background and thereby emphasise both?

I ask myself these questions all the time and just wondered how others make the decisions.

Gorgeous work...and nice to know that it's not only here in Scotland that it rains so hard.

[Geoff F]

Yes, those hybrid roses can be too complicated, which makes them difficult to photography. And they are so fussy about how they grow; needing so much attention from the gardener. Spraying all the time to prevent aphids and mildew etc.

Where I live, blackspot is a constant problem so I wouldn't have another hybrid rose in the garden, not even as a gift. Although I still have a climber, which requires little attention.

So, your shot of a much simpler flower is excellent. The raindrops are perfect and you have avoided over exposure problems in every one of them. Well done.

[aekonet]

@Daisy Mae & Geoff F:
Many thanks for your kind words and comments!

[Bobobird]

Otmar - gorgeous shot.

Could you explain how it was taken?
I cannot see even f18 getting all the details so sharp?

[aekonet]

Could you explain how it was taken?
I cannot see even f18 getting all the details so sharp?

As already answered your question (are you the same bobobird??) in the photocamel forum: Nothing special, natural light, no flash, no tripod, exif data are included in the image.
Some imageprocessing in PS, especially for the background.
F18 was enough for getting this sharpness, but I think it is the limit aperture before getting problems with diffraction blur.

br Otmar

[aekonet]

Sorry, doubleposting... please delete!

[DavidM61]

I don't know much about photography yet, but I know what I like, and I like this!! Great image and technique.

[Bobobird]

Thanks Otmar, yes the same.

Thanks for the info. I tried f11, f16, f18 and f22 the other day but past f16, pic started going softer. It was just an experiment to see how deep a DOF I could get on a bug with the lens.

[aekonet]

I tried f11, f16, f18 and f22 the other day but past f16, pic started going softer. It was just an experiment to see how deep a DOF I could get on a bug with the lens.

Start of diffraction blurring depends also on size of sensor (MFT / APS-C / Fullframe ...) of your camera, the bigger, the better.

[Bobobird]

Thanks, mine is an APS-C (550D).

I normally stick with f11 or larger. f16 sometimes for the longer bugs. Almost never beyond that.