Helpful Posts: 0
12th May 2010, 09:43 PM
13th May 2010, 12:07 AM
These are what I'd call "reference text book" quality, meaning you should get someone to write a book (on plants obviously) and you can do the photos.
13th May 2010, 12:18 AM
These are fantastic, Rob! Dave's right, they're at least textbook quality, or better. Since your wife is a botanist, maybe you can collaborate on it.
13th May 2010, 01:22 AM
Beautiful! The non-distracting background really helps.
13th May 2010, 02:39 AM
13th May 2010, 02:51 AM
WOW!! Not only textbook quality, beautiful works of art.
13th May 2010, 06:08 AM
I agree with others' opinions: these are very nice images. I am a bit surprised that the technique behind these images seems quite simple.
13th May 2010, 09:06 AM
The technique is really quite simple. Flowers are transluscent, especially the petal areas, so by putting a light behind them as well as one in front you get a more detailed view. It can also produce a very ethereal look, as it has done here. These shots were extremely easy to do, I just put the flower in water in a small vase and stood it on a white card with the window behind (north-facing is better). The front was lit by just one closely positioned studio light with a large soft-box which made the light very soft and diffuse. The principle here is the same as I did in this shot Improvisation on a hot sunny day which was shot outdoors - light in front and behind. The only tricky part is getting the light balanced so it looks good overall. I normally use a light meter for the studio light, but you could do it by trial and error in a few shots to get it right.
Originally Posted by Yan Zhang
13th May 2010, 09:15 AM
Originally Posted by Dave Humphries
I thought they didn't actually look like photographs - more like painted images. I think it's the quality and nature of the light doing that.
Thanks for the thought, but I think Clive Nicols has it stitched up (he does most of the flashy mag shots for the RHS etc) http://www.clivenichols.com/