Scottish Rock Garden Club Forum
Bulbs => Crocus => Topic started by: HClase on October 15, 2008, 03:46:00 PM
-
I've noticed that there is a problem getting the right colour on the screen, especially for purplish crocuses. Some posted pictures are clearly too blue and I have had the same problem myself. So I've been experimenting, and I thought people might like to see the results. My digital camera, a Nikon coolpix 5000, has a number of white balance settings, and while it's fiddly, especially when the sun keeps going in and out, it does seem to be important to get it right. The "daylight" (sunlight) setting assumes a lot of yellow in the light and makes the pictures more blue, the shade setting seems to to go the other way and make them more yellow/orange and cloudy is in between. The following pictures were all taken of my pot of C. banaticus while the sun was out, but in my own shadow. The cloudy setting looks about right on my screen - but that's another variable of course different screens have different colour balances too! You can also correct colour using a picture editor (I use Irfanview since it's free!), but these are untouched.
-
You've hit on a common problem...and hinted at the only real solution.
I used to get fabulous blues from Fuji Sensia and Provia film. Now that I've gone digital (still have plenty of Provia in the fridge...), that's all out the window.
I shoot with a Nikon Dx2, and I've had pretty good success using the auto white balance feature (about the only auto function I use...). It is NOT that good with blues and purples, often appearing totally different than to the naked eye.
The solution: FIX IT. Photoshop and other programs that allow manipulation of white balance and color offer incredible tools for creating fantasy images---and fixing the color casts that creep into blue-challenged digital captures.
Did anyone really tell you all that digital photography is FASTER than film???
-
Carlo,
No, but it is a darn sight cheaper!! ;D
-
Can I comment on angle of photography? To me the best angle to photograph a flat/wide open flower is from 45 degrees and not from vertical, looking down, but a vertical tight shot works for a single flower
-
Mark,
I'd agree totally with that, with the only exception being if you're really trying to capture the roundness or radial symmetry or something like that. Generally the shot from straight on loses a lot of depth of a flower, whereas the 45' angle gives a good view of everything and gives it all perspective. That said, I still find myself so often photographing from right above and only realising later when I process the pics that I've got the "flat" shot by doing so (and so often the flowers are over by then so I can't get a better one. ::) ). Good comment, Mark.
-
Paul,
I don't find it to be cheaper to shoot digital than film...not by a long shot. If you value your time, digital turns out to be far more costly. While I love that I no longer have to buy film and get it developed, if you're doing anything more than point-and-shoot, there is an incredible amount of time involved (learning new computer programs for optimizing captures and cataloguing the finished output, etc.). You can't forget the $$$ spent on computer storage, which will be a regular expense as you take more pictures, and periodically replace the hard drives that store them.
No...I wouldn't say it's cheaper, but the flexibility and opportunities digital photography afford make it worth the while...
-
Here's where Paul's "digital is cheaper" thought really comes into play...
From above or at 45 degrees? SHOOT THEM BOTH! Each will have it's own use and, for a given flower, may be preferred. Lots of flowers won't reveal their private bits if shot at 45, whereas an overhead shot shows them in all their glory. If you need to see pistils and stamens, you might not have an option!
-
I also generally try to get a variety of angles. The main problem with my Coolpix 5000 is that the automatic focus often doesn't work unless there's a flat surface to focus on, and the manual focus is tricky with my eyes and the rather small screen (but at least it rotates to more or less any angle). It's inevitable, too, that some part of the flower will be out of focus on an angled closeup. How do you find it Mark? This picture illustrates my points I think.
Another point is that while the Coolpix can focus down to 1 cm the lens is very wide angle in the closeup setting and gives a fish-eye effect which makes the flower look more open than it really is. I guess no picture is quite like the real thing!
I'd never go back to film for closeups, although there is more detail in the views on some old slides I've been scanning (Coolscan V) than I'd ever get with a 5 MPix digital! I know there are bigger and better ones these days, but I do find the relative compactness handy in the field (I do wild as well as garden flowers.)
-
Here's where Paul's "digital is cheaper" thought really comes into play...
From above or at 45 degrees? SHOOT THEM BOTH! Each will have it's own use and, for a given flower, may be preferred. Lots of flowers won't reveal their private bits if shot at 45, whereas an overhead shot shows them in all their glory. If you need to see pistils and stamens, you might not have an option!
Carlo,
Mark's comment was regarding "flat/wide open" flowers. My first thought was re throat markings etc, but with a flat/wide open flower that doesn't come into play. With a more closed flower, straight into the face is the only way to capture the inside.
-
I'm a newcomer to the digital macrophotography of flowers. Using a Canon Powershot A720 IS on 'auto', the results I get are very hit & miss. Some images are more-or-less acceptable, some are really poor, most are mediocre. Moving away from 'auto' & playing around with the controls (eg white balance) doesn't seem to help. Can anyone recommend a child's/idiot's guide either on the web or in print?
-
Gerry,
It all depends how much time you have. I'd recommend experimenting, taking a few similar shots with different settings (as my collection in the first item) and looking at the results.
Another point to remember is the reply given by an old nature photographer friend when asked "How is it all your pictures are so good?" He replied, "They aren't, I only show the good ones." Much easier to do with digital - I regularly delete 50-80% of mine once I get them on to the computer.
-
Gerry,
- I regularly delete 50-80% of mine once I get them on to the computer.
Thanks Howard, that's encouraging. I'm currently deleting about 90% of mine. I hope to improve!
-
I ALWAYS take more than one photo of anything with my digital. I often take slightly different angles just to see which works out better. I find that sometimes my camera struggles with the light so I then point it at something else to "reset" everything for a different picture, then bring it back to the original item.... this forces it to start from scratch again and often the light settings are better. Often finding something (like finger for example) and putting it next to the flower you're trying to photograph gives it something to work out where you're wanting the focus of your shot. The auto-focus cameras can be a real problem for focusing on the background instead of the item you want.... holding a couple of fingers up next to the flower, focusing on them, then shifting the camera back to the original item helps it work out where you wanted to focus in the first place But I find that generally you need to refocus on that item again after doing that or you'll get the light settings for your skin instead of what you were actually wanting. Sometimes, as mentioned elsewhere, this is a good thing for getting around colour balances and light settings, but sometimes it can result in a dark photo because you'd focused on your bright skin. I'm just talking about using the fingers here to help the camera work out what length you're trying to actually focus it. Doing this a couple of times and taking a few different pictures tends to mean that you're more likely to get one that works. ;)
Experimenting with your own camera is I think better than reading about it somewhere, as your camera is what you are working with whereas the books tend to be generic and try to cater for everything (or else are too specific and don't actually cater to your own camera). Good luck with the learning curve.... the effort is well worth it. 8)
-
Paul,
From my own experience, I always use manual focus when taking close-up photographs of flowers and also set to aperture priority, setting a very narrow aperture to give best depth of field.
Lighting is often a difficutly; too strong sunlight can effect the colour cast on the petals while too dull a light can leave the colour quite dull. Early morning and late afternoon/early evening I find give the best results. Of course, taking the flowers indoors and photographing under lights gives very controlled lighting conditions which can be easier to use to give guaranteed and regularly reliable results. Nothing beats natural light however.
Paddy
-
There are things to be said for both film and digital. I used slide film for about 50 years and have finally moved over to digital with no regrets.
No matter which brand of film I used, and laboratory, I had a good percentage of films damaged in processing and several lost in the post..
Exposure is always difficult with slide film as it is very unforgiving. Add to this, colour casts which can spoil an otherwise good picture. There was also the problem of blue flowers looking reddish as the film responded to the red spectrum mainly un-noticed by the human eye. Add to this the bother of carrying a load of film while on holiday and having to wait on your return to find that you had messed up an unrepeatable shot. I now have one 4Gb, and 3 2Gb compact flash cards. This gives me the option to shoot approx. 1,700 jpegs at 10.3 Mb - the equivalent of 40 films. Forty films including processing would cost about £280 and a good percentage would be thrown in the bin. With digital, I can see immediately if the picture is worth keeping or re-shoot until I get it right.
However, I have started to scan my old slides and negatives and have been heartened to see the quality of Fuji Velvia scans at maximum resolution. I have a few I scanned as 80 Gb files which could be printed at about 5 feet by 3 feet. I have repaired slides with heavy scratches, dirt and bad colour casts which haven't been able to view for over 40 years. All in all. I am a fan of digital.
-
One good thing about using digital, especially when at home, is if you take a rubbish shot you can go outside straight away and take another. Before my computer slow down I would take a batch of photos and edit them and take more if need be
-
One good thing about using digital, especially when at home, is if you take a rubbish shot you can go outside straight away and take another.
I'll expand on this...
Dont just take one photo of your new Crocus, or whatever, but take many. I take up to 10. I vary the angle, rotate the pot, wait for the flower to fully open and take more. Always have your photo pixel size set to high. You cant do much with a standard 640 pixel wide photo. My camera is set to 3468 pixels wide. This could result in a printed photo 128x96cm/50x38 inches/4x3 feet. With an image this size you can cut/crop out unwanted clutter or background that when reduced in pixel size you get a good large image.
-
That must be your Canon Mark - the Nikon doesn't get that big.
Another tip I can add is to use a tripod, I have one of those little ones that they use in window displays which is invaluable for short plants like crocus, using a tripod and timer means that you can use smaller apertures (larger f numbers) and longer exposures; this increases the depth of focus. The legs expand from 6 to 16 cm.
If you are worried about the plant moving (e.g. in the wind) rather than hand shake, then the Nikon has "best shot selection", when you can take up to 7 exposures and it will pick out the least blurred one for you. I find this can work surprisingly well sometimes.
-
Always have your photo pixel size set to high. You cant do much with a standard 640 pixel wide photo. My camera is set to 3468 pixels wide. This could result in a printed photo 128x96cm/50x38 inches/4x3 feet. With an image this size you can cut/crop out unwanted clutter or background that when reduced in pixel size you get a good large image.
Mark - I’ve been using the best quality on my Canon camera (3264 x 2448 & DPI = 180). The pics uploaded from the camera look fine.
I prepare them for posting with the software that came with the camera (‘Image Browser’) using the “Create Image for Email” with the highest quality setting & a size of 640 x 480 pixels. The results are not very good - the pics now often show pixels so that leaves & the petal edges look jagged.
I’m using a Mac with plenty of memory.
Do you have any explanation or suggestions? Thanks
-
Gerry I have never used the software that came with my camera nor any of the others programmes that people mention. I dont have a technical mind but it's possible your programme is fault. Why not do an experiment? You edit one of your images and email me your full size images and I'll edit it. We can post them side by side for comparison or if you own a programme like Photoshop you can try it.
-
I use Irfanview - because it's free and I can get it to run under wine on Linux, it's a bit slower than under XP, but works as well. I'm generally satisfied, but it does seem to give me large files sometimes than others are getting.
-
Howard
I use Irfanview for reducing my files and the end result depends very much on what advanced settings you are using. I have it set to 'long side 600 pixels' This gives me consistently small files
-
Gerry I have never used the software that came with my camera nor any of the others programmes that people mention. I dont have a technical mind but it's possible your programme is fault.
Mark - I thought the programme might be faulty so I downloaded the latest version from the Canon website. No improvement. However, I think I may have found a way to produce a decent image using the 'Export Image' programme. What puzzles me is that the first few images from this camera which I posted were made using the Canon email programme & those were OK. Computers are mysterious beasts.
Anyway, thanks for the offer.
-
Gerry, if it's raining with you (it's coming down in icy torrents here!) and you want to have a play with some software it is well worth downloading Irfanview as it's free. (you can get rid of it later if you don't like it). I use it for some things and there are a whole host of plug-ins available with it which I have to say I don't understand and don't use, but again I have not, so far, just had a play with them to see what they do. I don't understand how to crop images with Irfanview as it seems very complicated and instead I use Picas 2, again a free download from Google. Cropping with Picasa is an absolute doddle wheras re-sizing with Irfanview is also an absolute doddle.
I think I realised a long time ago that I was never going to be a good photographer, I lack an artistic apptitude, and tend to just put up with whatever comes out of the camera as long as it isn't blurred. I have enough trouble growing the damned things without worrying about pictures of them. ;D
-
David - it's stopped raining here, now it's just cold & miserable. After Howard mentioned Irfanview I looked for it on the web. Unfortunately it's not available for Macs.
-
I think I realised a long time ago that I was never going to be a good photographer, I lack an artistic apptitude, and tend to just put up with whatever comes out of the camera as long as it isn't blurred. I have enough trouble growing the damned things without worrying about pictures of them. ;D
And I thought it was only me!
-
We can all take bad photos. I posted a truely awful photo last week to try and get comments and although it was viewed at least 10 times no-one commented. If I dont have a good enough photo to share I dont use it. It's so easy to go outside and take another set
-
I think I realised a long time ago that I was never going to be a good photographer, I lack an artistic apptitude, and tend to just put up with whatever comes out of the camera as long as it isn't blurred. I have enough trouble growing the damned things without worrying about pictures of them. ;D
And I thought it was only me!
;D ;D
-
We can all take bad photos. I posted a truely awful photo last week to try and get comments and although it was viewed at least 10 times no-one commented. If I dont have a good enough photo to share I dont use it. It's so easy to go outside and take another set
For some of us it definitely is not.A good camera helps but not all of us are a budding Lord Litchfield. I think if it is an interesting plant better to share a poor picture than none at all, which is the method I have to use quite often.
-
I am constantly delighted by the high calibre of photography shown in the forum but I am also very aware that I would rather see a fuzzy photo of a plant or someone's garden than not see it at all.
If someone is giving a public talk then I do expect high quality potographs but this is a forum where we can all discuss, show and enjoy the plants that we are all so fascinated with.....it's not the exam section of the Royal Photographic Society!!
By all means strive to improve.. whether that's in growing your plants or taking photographs of them, but, mostly, just DO IT.... and SHARE!!! 8)
-
Mark,
Regarding your posting what you describe as a poor photograph to try to get comments: I think most people using the forum would not comment on your photograph so as not to be rude or hurtful. The fact that you post is the more important thing and people enjoy that. The occasional poor photograph is no big deal and people will think that it was the best you could manage in the conditions in which you took it.
I hadn't taken note of the photograph, by the way, which one was it?
Paddy
-
Mark - I thought the programme might be faulty so I downloaded the latest version from the Canon website. No improvement. However, I think I may have found a way to produce a decent image using the 'Export Image' programme. What puzzles me is that the first few images from this camera which I posted were made using the Canon email programme & those were OK. Computers are mysterious beasts.
Gerry,
Better late than never with a response to this....... possibly you changed a setting somewhere after your first few images that were OK, most likely something in the save area which sets the resolution of the saved files. With most of the packages around, changes to this sort of area are inherited the next time the package is used. I have an "advanced" area within the package that I use, and one of the settings within it is as a percentage of resolution (i.e 100% resolution makes huge resulting files, while 10% makes crappy grainy results). I am wondering whether you have accidentally set something like this while you were still investigating your package with the camera, and that it has then stayed as a setting so you get the grainy photos. Installing the newer version of the package will likely import the settings from your old version, so quite possibly it has inherited the resolution change when you installed the newer version of the software. I don't have your software that comes with the camera so I can't comment on it or help you find the setting you may have changed, but it sounds most likely that that is what you have done. When I was first messing around with settings in the package I use I found out the hard way that this sort of change can make a BIG difference to everything I save after that, and it did take me a while to remember exactly what it was I changed so I could fix it. ::)
If I were you I'd be trying to get another piece of software to try before thinking it is you camera that isn't producing good enough pics, because by the sound of it your camera should be doing a good job.
Good luck, and I hope this is of some small use. 8)
-
Here's a series of photos of a Crocus to show how the angle can show of the flower or be wrong.
-
Paul - many thanks for your reply. As regards my early pictures, like Hillary Clinton, I misremembered. In fact the Canon software is more-or-less useless for producing smallish, good quality email images, a fact more-or-less acknowledged by Canon when I contacted them to get some help. They should stick to making cameras ( I'm very happy with mine). I have an old Adobe programme ('Photodeluxe') which came free with some hardware & although it's a bit laborious to use it works perfectly so I'll be using this from now on.
-
Here's a series of photos of a Crocus to show how the angle can show of the flower or be wrong.
I'd be proud of any of them!
-
David can't your camera take close shots?
-
Yes, it has a macro and a super macro which is supposed to focus from 4cm from the object
-
Mark,
Does your camera allow you to select various apertures?
Paddy
-
No it's basically a point and shoot
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_Camera/IXUS/Digital_IXUS_900_Ti/ (http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_Camera/IXUS/Digital_IXUS_900_Ti/)
-
It's a good exercise to see which viewpoint best suits the flower or the view of the flower you most wish to capture. The change in point of focus and background are also interesting.
Paddy
-
It wasnt the best of days for photography making the camera change focus quite a bit
-
My Coolpix 5400 allows focusing down to 1cm (partly why I bought it), but it does give a fisheye effect this close up. I would also have difficulty with the automatic focus and Mark's first few angled shots, it seems to like a reasonably large perpendicular flat area to focus on and good light. My eyes aren't that good for manual focusing on the small screen either, so I often have to give up, or guess and take a series of shots at different distances.