Sometimes I get so bored with life - more flowers....

[carregwen]

Shot with Canon 50D, Sigma 105mm, 1x studio head, and 1x Canon flash-gun. All in manual mode. Same flower, but I changed the backdrop. For that I used two different A4 sheets of coloured art paper glued to an art board. El cheapo!

C&C welcome. Obligatory I'd say, given this thread HERE

[Skitalez]

Fine! And what distance from a flower to a wall?

[Katy Noelle]

Oh, brother! I wish that I'd never clicked here because, now, I've read that other thread and feel all guilty. How in the world am I supposed to comment on this, being a beginner in photography?

I've stretched and thought and think that I like the orange background because it reminds me of sherbert (good thing) but I wish that it was rotated clockwise one turn or tilted to get some flow going from the curled petal, through to the bud.

Number 2 is, when it comes right down to it, pleasing because it's a subtle variation on red, white and blue which is always a dynamic combination. I do like the red and blue next to each other - it's quite rich.

Flowers! I love them! I see one and I reach for my camera but I have a deep desire to, somehow, capture one differently. Trouble is I keep winding up with a Georgia O'Keefe. (If you know what I'm saying, don't you DARE say anything! ) Blast it all!

[mythlady]

They're beautiful -- for me, the blue of the bottom one is a little too intense, and I prefer the composition of the top one, with the whole flower and the bud. But they're both beautifully photographed.

[Donald]

How in the world am I supposed to comment on this, being a beginner in photography?

Just tell him they're rubbish!

[wilgk]

I agree with Elise about the blue background - but I prefer the composition of the second one

[Donald]

Just tell him they're rubbish!

Actually ... they're not. But don't tell him I said that.

In line, I think, with Elise's thoughts, I see the second as someone screaming at me to look at them. The first, on the other hand, is the seductress sitting quietly in the corner saying, "Darling, I'm over here'. Much more subtle and sophisticated.

[Katy Noelle]

I know what all y'all mean about the composition in the first one but, I like being able to see the textures and speckles in the second.

[carregwen]

I see the second as someone screaming at me to look at them. The first, on the other hand, is the seductress sitting quietly in the corner saying, "Darling, I'm over here'. Much more subtle and sophisticated.

How many times do I have to tell you, Donald, keep out of my medicine cabinet...

[carregwen]

Fine! And what distance from a flower to a wall?

This was the setup for these shots. The main light is the studio head on the left. The Canon flash has a diffuser on to soften the light. You can see the blue back-board. And I shot the flower on the left side, which is just visible. The board on the right (against the box-file) is to bounce back the light onto the back of the flower.

[Clactonian]

.... I see the second as someone screaming at me to look at them. The first, on the other hand, is the seductress sitting quietly in the corner saying, "Darling, I'm over here'. Much more subtle and sophisticated.

Donald, you need to get out more ... and that's an order!!!

[carregwen]

Donald, you need to get out more ... and that's an order!!!

No, you are quite wrong there. If I had a "seductress sitting quietly in the corner saying, "Darling, I'm over here'" I think I would want to stay in more!

[Clactonian]

No, you are quite wrong there. If I had a "seductress sitting quietly in the corner saying, "Darling, I'm over here'" I think I would want to stay in more!

So would I, but Donald's looking at flowers for heaven's sake.

[Sam Smith]

Rob great as usual. I like Lilly #1 the composition is better and the background color is not a very common one.

[Camellia]

Shot with Canon 50D, Sigma 105mm, 1x studio head, and 1x Canon flash-gun. All in manual mode. Same flower, but I changed the backdrop. For that I used two different A4 sheets of coloured art paper glued to an art board. El cheapo!

C&C welcome. Obligatory I'd say, given this thread HERE

Hi Rob

I'm going to comment without reading everyone else's comments so forgive me if you've heard it before.

I find the blue background in #2 too bright - I keep focussing on it instead of the flower, which is a shame because the flower has lovely texture. If you mute the background a bit, I think it would work. In #1 the background colour complements the flower well. I probably prefer the composition in #2 because I find the bud a distraction in #1. I like the simplicity of the flower without other elements. That's my take on it. BTW - I love lilies.

[DippyRebel]

Here's my view, without reading the other comments (I'll go back and do that after I've posted!).

I like the exposure and depth of field is just right for me. The texture of the petals is good. Both have a nice simplicity which appeals to me.

Of the two I prefer the first, but my brain keeps wanting to rotate it through 90 clockwise. The petal touching the bud rather draws attention to the bud, which takes my eye away from the lily bloom.

[carregwen]

Rob great as usual. I like Lilly #1 the composition is better and the background color is not a very common one.

Yes, it's quite good, I thought. I just went to a stationery shop and bought a pack of coloured mottled paper and glued several different sheets on pieces of larger art-board (as you can see in the set-up shot above). I thought it quite effective for a few pence cost!

[Sam Smith]

Yes, it's quite good, I thought. I just went to a stationery shop and bought a pack of coloured mottled paper and glued several different sheets on pieces of larger art-board (as you can see in the set-up shot above). I thought it quite effective for a few pence cost!

Very effective and cheap. I will have to try it. My only concern is that I have never used external lights other the occasional flash. The set up does not look to hard. I did notice the light meter. Is it more effective than the camera metering?

[carregwen]

Very effective and cheap. I will have to try it. My only concern is that I have never used external lights other the occasional flash. The set up does not look to hard. I did notice the light meter. Is it more effective than the camera metering?

You can get a set of cheap studio lights which will serve you very well if you just want to do still-life, head and shoulder portraits, macro etc. For bigger scenes you would need more powerful lights. I have had my set of (two) lights for three years and they cost me £260 including softbox, cones, filters etc. Never had a problem with them and they serve me very well. 200W lamps are probably the minimum you need. I used a Canon flash light in this scene as I was short of space and wanted to get in further. The flash-gun was triggered by a transmitter on the camera, and that also triggered the studio flash at the same time.

The light meter is very useful, and saves time. You set up the shot/lights, then test fire the lights and take a flash meter reading after keying in your ISO and speed. The meter tells you what f-number to use. If you want more DOF just turn the power up and meter again to get a smaller aperture.

It's all very good fun, and improves your photography no end. It's all about light. This one was shot last week with a similar set-up.

[carregwen]

Just to prove I do listen to the ladies...