Macro/Close-Up: Red ~ With thanks to Bob Ross 'The Joy Of Painting'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chaman

You could try even bigger words and arrows but sadly it still OOF. Mostly sharp is not the same as focused. Yes its OOF. There is not a single truly sharp area in the image.

---

Well if those are not focused areas I have pointed to and if they are not sharp there's not really much else one can say.

And if we also consider that this is just a low quality jpeg without knowing what the original is like, or what if any sharpening has been undertaken and then suggesting that it's all OOF simply makes absolutely no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stagecoach

Well if those are not focused areas I have pointed to and if they are not sharp there's not really much else one can say.

And if we also consider that this is just a low quality jpeg without knowing what the original is like, or what if any sharpening has been undertaken and then suggesting that it's all OOF simply makes absolutely no sense.

---

Suggestion.....learn to tolerate other persons opinions. IMO, is not sharp. Its an overall soft image AND underexposed. Yes, there is nothing much to say. Ive seen what happens here if a critique is not liked by this poster. I want NO part in it. I will NEVER give another opinion is this poster's thread and this will be my last post in this futile thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chaman

Suggestion.....learn to tolerate other persons opinions. IMO, is not sharp. Its an overall soft image AND underexposed. Yes, there is nothing much to say. Ive seen what happens here if a critique is not liked by this poster. I want NO part in it. I will NEVER give another opinion is this poster's thread and this will be my last post in this futile thread.

---

There's a big difference between tolerating another's 'opinions' to accepting 'misleading statements'.

You are welcome to your opinion "that the image is not sharp" and "underexposed", but with respect to the 'sharpness' as pointed out above, opinion on this needs to also take other things into account.

But, the issue that you have continued to push is that the image is OOF, which it clearly is not on the focus plane, whether we like where the focus plane is situated or not.

As for mentioning the "poster" it is me, not the poster that you seem to be taking issue with and it is yourself that seems to not want to reason.

This is a learning site, and misleading comments can lead some in the wrong direction when assessing images with respect to sharpness, DOF, focus plane and OOF critique and comments.

Not pushing an issue. I posted my opinion. Is soft all over, a few sharper areas dont mean its focused. Tolerate the opinion and move on. You really seem to have a problem with other people opinions and its getting ridiculous. If anyone seems to be pushing something is YOU. Now I will go and leave you talking with yourself a little bit more. Have a good night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stagecoach

You have certainly not offended me in any way Brian.

Firstly what I will say is that from my own experience I have never really had any success attempting to photograph small flowers, I suspect it's totally due to IQ rather than any particular difference between the make up difference between a smaller and larger subject.

Strangely, my other half looked at the images and took interest in what I explained to her, she likes your second attempt because she prefers the leaves and finds them more interesting than the flower:D. For me the second shot does not enhance the natural beauty of the flower, but it could work if you wanted to show the single flower with its leaves.

As for the OOF issue, I can't see one. What there is is a very shallow DOF as we would expect but on this second image I'm wondering if it would have been possible, or more important to get the entire flower within the DOF.

Anyway, for info here is my take of how I would have tackled the first shot, it also emphasises where the focus plane was, just about perfect:)

https://photos.smugmug.com/Client-Wo...red%20mine.jpg

---

Looking at the shot in the GIMP and decomposing the color into H,S,V layers the red hue is totally dominant, the saturation is almost 100% in the petals and the petals themselves are dominant in the value plane. Therefore, there is almost no contrast in the flower which some of us might wrongly interpret as a lack of detail.

People sometimes confuse contrast and sharpness but they are not the same thing.

Welcome back Brian. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chaman

a few sharper areas dont mean its focused.

---

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

Looking at the shot in the GIMP and decomposing the color into H,S,V layers the red hue is totally dominant, the saturation is almost 100% in the petals and the petals themselves are dominant in the value plane. Therefore, there is almost no contrast in the flower which some of us might wrongly interpret as a lack of detail.

People sometimes confuse contrast and sharpness but they are not the same thing.

Welcome back Brian. :D

---

Thanks:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stagecoach

:D

---

If I may, This is an unstacked macro shot. The DOF is going to be limited. I intentionally focused on the crystal like semi circle near the center. If you look at the shot in the litebox they are in focus as are other areas of the flower in the same narrow plane.

As Grahame has pointed out it is possible and perhaps even quite natural to dislike the plane i captured but I did capture it. As Chaman has pointed out the rest of the shot is soft. And as Ted points out that is because of lack of contrast as well as the other areas not being in the focal plane.

I did not post this shot because it is perfect or even great but because I needed help with it. I'll apologize once more to Chaman.

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBW

If I may, This is an unstacked macro shot. The DOF is going to be limited. I intentionally focused on the crystal like semi circle near the center. If you look at the shot in the litebox they are in focus as are other areas of the flower in the same narrow plane.

As Grahame has pointed out it is possible and perhaps even quite natural to dislike the plane i captured but I did capture it. As Chaman has pointed out the rest of the shot is soft. And as Ted points out that is because of lack of contrast as well as the other areas not being in the focal plane.

I did not post this shot because it is perfect or even great but because I needed help with it.
Brian

---

Fully agree Brian.

Quote:

---

You could try even bigger words and arrows but sadly it still OOF. Mostly sharp is not the same as focused. Yes its OOF. There is not a single truly sharp area in the image.

---

This snide tone is inappropriate, and you are wrong in any case. Brian has clearly shown an area that is in focus. If the entire image were out of focus, the hairs he pointed to would not be clearly defined, but they are.

It is the case that most of the image is largely free of detail. For example, here is a section from the left side of the flower, blown up to 200%:

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-.../i-FPx5CzM.jpg

What little variation there is looks to me like a combination of sensor noise and pixelization from enlarging a low resolution JPEG.

My hunch was that the lack of detail stemmed from saturation as well as having most of the image out of focus. Ted's later post is consistent with that. My experience has been that it is extremely hard to photograph intensely red flowers while preserving detail, and I process red flowers different from many other images. For example, with red flowers, I almost always use a luminosity blend when adding contrast with a curves tool, in order to avoid increasing saturation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanK

This snide tone is inappropriate, and you are wrong in any case. Brian has clearly shown an area that is in focus. If the entire image were out of focus, the hairs he pointed to would not be clearly defined, but they are.

It is the case that most of the image is largely free of detail. For example, here is a section from the left side of the flower, blown up to 200%:

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-.../i-FPx5CzM.jpg

What little variation there is looks to me like a combination of sensor noise and pixelization from enlarging a low resolution JPEG.

My hunch was that the lack of detail stemmed from saturation as well as having most of the image out of focus. Ted's later post is consistent with that. My experience has been that it is extremely hard to photograph intensely red flowers while preserving detail, and I process red flowers different from many other images. For example, with red flowers, I almost always use a luminosity blend when adding contrast with a curves tool, in order to avoid increasing saturation.

---

It was shot in RAW. Next time I'll try the luminosity blend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBW

Fair enough Oscar. I don't know where your somewhere in t6he tropics is but maybe you have the same flower somewhere near you. Perhaps you could give it a try.

I do a reasonable macro with usually good focus but this flower eludes me every time. I will try to get out today and give it another try.:)

---

And what about THIS TONE HERE? Is not appropriate? You approve it Dank? Its not the first time either. Perhaps I should take this issue with the mods here? I gave my honest opinion and got trash from the OP. If you are going to start acting like a police perhaps consider policing other posts, okay? I gave my opinion you dont share it? Fine. But dont climb up so high on your horse, you may fall down.

BTW I decided to report the OP response to me. It would be MUCH better to let the REAL mods know about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chaman

And what about THIS TONE HERE? Is not appropriate? You approve it Dank? Its not the first time either. Perhaps I should take this issue with the mods here? I gave my honest opinion and got trash from the OP. If you are going to start acting like a police perhaps consider policing other posts, okay? I gave my opinion you dont share it? Fine. But dont climb up so high on your horse, you may fall down.

BTW I decided to report the OP response to me. It would be MUCH better to let the REAL mods know about it.

---

Which is of course, your right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chaman

And what about THIS TONE HERE? Is not appropriate? You approve it Dank? Its not the first time either. Perhaps I should take this issue with the mods here? I gave my honest opinion and got trash from the OP. If you are going to start acting like a police perhaps consider policing other posts, okay? I gave my opinion you dont share it? Fine. But dont climb up so high on your horse, you may fall down.

BTW I decided to report the OP response to me. It would be MUCH better to let the REAL mods know about it.

---

Obviously a flaming troll, folks.

Mods, what do you think?

Funny. I get trashed around for expressing an opinion and I am a troll? Is that how its is with you? You dont agree with another guy opinion and recur to name calling? You got some nerve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chaman

Funny. I get trashed around for expressing an opinion and I am a troll? Is that how its is with you? You dont agree with another guy opinion and recur to name calling? You got some nerve.

---

I must admit, you do have a way with words ... ;)

Please report me, too.

I'm sorry, but I have decided to shut down this thread as tempers appear to be flaring.

Time to calm down please.