| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2012 |
| Location: | South Lakeland, UK |
| Posts: | 4066 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
I would be interested in views on the quality of this image ....
While the initial impact of the image is impressive, a longer look reveals weaknesses.
I would have either relocated or removed the intruding blade of grass. The bokeh is poor to say the least, a consequence of the effectively short focal length. It isn't practical or truly realistic to introduce bokeh in post process, apart from the tedium, the results don't look as good as a proper bokeh.
More of a concern is the lack of micro contrast and the movement blur in some parts of the flower, in fact some of the flower esp. at 3-4 o'clock from centre are approaching mush, I think it's over exposure due to the reflective fluorescent elements of the petals of the flower, is yellow blown in the histogram?
Strong direct sunshine isn't your friend for flower photography, less strong, more diffused lighting would be better, a white fine mesh screen to shade the flower can work well. On a trip to Cambridge university botanic garden some years ago, the sun was so strong I had my son Michael hold a white towel to shade the flowers for this exact reason. Even a recent, top DSLR lens and sensor would struggle to produce a perfect image in that light. You will get far more micro detail and texture with less harsh light.
Post processing, esp. with the latest Lightroom auto and detail extraction/enhancement would improve the impact considerably but I think it would struggle with the mushy area, it looks over exposed to me, there is far better definition where the lighting is more shaded/less direct.
Bright flowers are not easy! Flowers are intended to attract flying insects, the brighter the better, you should see the same flower in UV.
____________________
Robert.