PDA

View Full Version : Playing with Roses and Light


Woolburr
18th of February 2010 (Thu), 15:10
3 flashes and daylight....just trying to balance things.
http://Frogdawg.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p49073882-4.jpg (http://Frogdawg.zenfolio.com/p53513479/e2ecceda)

Photo is clickable link to larger image on black.

Kingnog
18th of February 2010 (Thu), 15:51
Is that real blur, or fake blur added in Photoshop?

I like the glow effect, but I don't like how most of the roses are out of focus. I might like it more if the vase was turned around so the roses were in the front.

Woolburr
18th of February 2010 (Thu), 16:50
I don't even own or use Photoshop.....so I guess it has to be real blur. If you check the EXIF, it will show you that it was shot at f/1.8....only one rose was in focus intentionally, as they were past their prime and starting to get a little ratty looking with dark spots. The glow was from the flashes below shooting straight up.

Amarinelli
18th of February 2010 (Thu), 18:36
I don't even own or use Photoshop.....so I guess it has to be real blur. If you check the EXIF, it will show you that it was shot at f/1.8....only one rose was in focus intentionally, as they were past their prime and starting to get a little ratty looking with dark spots. The glow was from the flashes below shooting straight up.It looks like you accomplished exactly what you wanted at f/1.8 I like it.I just got the canon 85mm f/1.8 today and can't wait to try it out.

Alan

Woolburr
18th of February 2010 (Thu), 18:53
The 85 is a great lens...also fun to play with when you add an extension tube.

Woolburr
20th of February 2010 (Sat), 00:40
http://Frogdawg.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p278599813-4.jpg (http://Frogdawg.zenfolio.com/p53513479/e109b1885)

Comerfjc
20th of February 2010 (Sat), 01:08
Dan,

That's a pretty sweet photo! Looks a little bit underexposed on my screen, but other than that, I'm really enjoying the composition. :)

Some of your photo galleries have images that have been altered using photoshop filters, such as fractalius. And I'll be darned if those aren't some of the most saturated, colorful images I've ever seen without some kinda post processing.

Sure you don't got Photoshop? ;)

Woolburr
20th of February 2010 (Sat), 01:14
I am quite positive that I do not own or even have access to a copy of Photoshop, nor have I ever even altered a single pixel with it. You will note though, that I have never claimed to not PP my images. I just don't use Photoshop.








P.S.
I do have a copy of Elements 7. ;)

Comerfjc
20th of February 2010 (Sat), 01:33
Well there we go! :D

(Enjoyed looking through your gallery, btw. Some cool shots in there.)

Woolburr
20th of February 2010 (Sat), 01:46
Thanks!

GoRk
20th of February 2010 (Sat), 11:13
3 flashes? where they in the same room as the flowers?

Woolburr
20th of February 2010 (Sat), 11:36
3 flashes? where they in the same room as the flowers?

Actually, they were at my neighbors house. :lol:

GoRk
20th of February 2010 (Sat), 16:41
well ok...did u have any triggering device for the flashs :D or did they just stand there in the room :D

Woolburr
20th of February 2010 (Sat), 17:58
They triggered just fine...

spiralspirit
21st of February 2010 (Sun), 18:25
I personally like rose photos that aren't as ridiculously bright as some of what I see all over - it provides a different ambiance thats not quite as over the top. I like these shots quite a bit.

Woolburr
21st of February 2010 (Sun), 18:36
Thanks.....I prefer more subdued lighting myself. I know it isn't everyone's cup of tea....but then again, neither are the ones that are on the verge of causing the viewer to need sunglasses. ;)