Impatient for Impatiens

Second Macro attempt. Thanks in advance for your feedback as I am an empty sponge.
*smile*
Harry-oopps forgot S5 IS Impatiens in my flower bed at the front door. exif is inclosed

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

OK Harry, I'll post my comments before Eccles this time...

Firstly, you've got the flower in focus. which is a big plus point.

Now to the part I feel very self-concious about... I wouldn't feel so bad if I considered myself an expert in the field.

Firstly, the subject itself. Yes, it is a nice flower and a good colour, but ask yourself does it make a good picture on its own? Is there anything that draws the eye? There are a lot of subjects out there that look great to the naked eye, but simply don't translate into a great photo.

Next, the lighting. Light makes or breaks a picture, and for most subjects, even lighting hides any texture that is present. Early morning or late evening sunlight comes from a low angle and can often help. Shadows are enhanced and contours are more obvious.

Another point is the background. When a flower is the subject of a photograph, the eye needs no distractions, and a wide f/stop will often throw it out of focus. The trouble is, this contradicts with the objective that you want all the flower in focus and so need a smaller aperture. So what do you do? Well, you have 3 choices really.

• Pick another flower that is further away from a cluttered background.
  
• Change the angle at which you are taking the picture
  
• Focus tighter onto the flower to eliminate the background altogether.

dreamline wrote in post #3736522
OK Harry, I'll post my comments before Eccles this time...

Firstly, you've got the flower in focus. which is a big plus point.

Now to the part I feel very self-concious about... I wouldn't feel so bad if I considered myself an expert in the field.

Firstly, the subject itself. Yes, it is a nice flower and a good colour, but ask yourself does it make a good picture on its own? Is there anything that draws the eye? There are a lot of subjects out there that look great to the naked eye, but simply don't translate into a great photo.

Next, the lighting. Light makes or breaks a picture, and for most subjects, even lighting hides any texture that is present. Early morning or late evening sunlight comes from a low angle and can often help. Shadows are enhanced and contours are more obvious.

Another point is the background. When a flower is the subject of a photograph, the eye needs no distractions, and a wide f/stop will often throw it out of focus. The trouble is, this contradicts with the objective that you want all the flower in focus and so need a smaller aperture. So what do you do? Well, you have 3 choices really.

• Pick another flower that is further away from a cluttered background.
  
• Change the angle at which you are taking the picture
  
• Focus tighter onto the flower to eliminate the background altogether.

You have a digital camera and shots cost you nothing, so experiment. Try shots from unusual angles, vary the aperture, take the same subject at different times of the day, try closer and more distant shots. Then examine them at your leisure and decide what you think works.

There is no substitute for experience, so get out there and take pictures. Oh, and remember that I am not even a good amateur, let alone a pro, so this advice comes with an 'absorb or ignore at your discretion' rider...

You know, I have edited video for 5 years and at first it was daunting but it became easier to "paint a picture" and tell the story I wanted to tell. I could capture a ton of footage, cut, ripple, paste, dissovle, correct color to paint the mood, sound tracks, sound effects, there were lots of tools to facilitate taking the viewer to a "place".
When I got this camera, I thought ok, ONE FRAME, no brainer, *rolling eyes here*, they say every picture tells a story. The spirit of the saying is true but the "letter of the law" of the saying isnt necessarily. Correct me where necessary but I feel like photographs tell a story, pictures are just that. Maybe it has documented an event or archived history of for instance, a new bloom on an impatien. But the photograph, like you suggest, TAKES the eye somewhere.
The picture is not the story, the composition and finally the photograph, IS the story.
I had no idea the considerations necessary to take a PHOTOGRAPH, that in fact does what a photograph can do.
In my videos after all the footage is compiled there are tons of opportunity to "tell the story" and then on review its part of my job to insure the video is "mechanically sound".
This photography thing is IN YOUR HEAD, before you release shutter. I can appreciate a little more now what makes a "picture" become a "photograph"

Thanks for the input,

Harry-as with most, this will be a "process" and not an "event"