f/22 Flower

Shot this at f/22, 200mm. The DOF even at f/16 didn't seem to get all the petals in focus. f/4 only got the front petal in focus.

Do you think the background is too distracting, or does it work out fairly well?

Looks to me like you've nailed it.

Good composition, good lighting, background under control, nice colors.
It may be a little too simple for some tastes, but you've got a good grip on the technical issues.

I think it looks great. I agree with Robert, and actually really like the simple composition. The depth of field is 'bout perfect - just enough definition in the background, but subject is nice and isolated.

I only have issues with the composition. I recognize your effort to satisfy the ROT. But the rule of thirds is just a guide line which works best when there are multiple elements in the image. The dead/negative space on the left destroys the comp for me. It has no description and doesn't contribute. It is not needed. I would rather that the flower kiss the sides and it's center be placed on the top 1/3 horizontal. I also find the stem being on the vertical rather than a diagonal to be static. You can increase the dynbamics of your shot if you rearrange the flower so that the stem imminates from one of the lower corners.

It is a very nice simple composition for a beautiful flower. You captured very good sharp detail.

If you want more DOF at f/16 using the 200 mm lens, you could try shooting from farther away. The other option is to use a different lens with a shorter focal length. Assuming that you are using an XTi and shot the image 6 feet from the flower, the DOF at f/22 is marginally useful at 2.5" and at f/16, the DOF is a somewhat narrower 1.8 inches. By increasing the distance from the camera to subject to 10 feet, the DOF at f/16 takes a huge jump to slightly more than 5 inches. If you were to switch to a 100 mm lens, the DOF at f/16 would be over 21 inches.

Great advice everyone, thanks a bunch!

It is great that you could get the whole flower in focus, while the background is blurred.

It looks a bit overexposed on my monitor. It might be a good idea to try to take the photo with the same settings, except with a lower f stop. A side effect may be that the photo would seem a bit sharper too.

samanan wrote in post #5465466
It is great that you could get the whole flower in focus, while the background is blurred.

It looks a bit overexposed on my monitor. It might be a good idea to try to take the photo with the same settings, except with a lower f stop. A side effect may be that the photo would seem a bit sharper too.

Interesting observation, and yes, you are correct. There are some small areas having blown out highlights.

My criteria for ignoring those is as follows:
If the total area that is blown out or without detail is very small in relation to the total image size, jut ignore it - especially when a very large portion of the image develops blocked up shadows as a result of fixing the over-exposure.

I think that in this case, we could ignore it.

Robert_Lay wrote in post #5465845
My criteria for ignoring [Blown out highlights] is as follows:
If the total area that is blown out or without detail is very small in relation to the total image size, jut ignore it - especially when a very large portion of the image develops blocked up shadows as a result of fixing the over-exposure.

I think that in this case, we could ignore it.

I would generally agree, but I think that when the overexposed areas are an eye-grabbing part of the main subject that you have to be stricter about correct exposure for them. In this picture, more than anywhere else the eye is trying to draw detail out of the blown highlights, so there's more incentive to avoid overexposure, and perhaps even increase contrast slightly in post-processing. As Robert says, reducing Ev can bring downsides elsewhere: at minimum insignificant extra noise, but often significant levels, and at worst blocked up shadows. Where there's no movement, HDR techniques should successfully counter this. Less harsh lighting might help too.

A good shot that's already attracted lots of other good feedback above. I would also add that it seems the most interesting part of the photo is hidden by the side-on angle, and angling even more down into the flower, or at least shooting somewhat through the gap between petals, might provide more interest and a more "dynamic" shot.

Cheers, Tony