CC on macro shots

Any feedback would be a big help. I'm trying to decide if shots taken with the flash diffuser I made for the on-camera flash (on my A620) are any good - not surprisingly they all have a certain feel to them, very minimal shadows (it encircles the lens), light only shows closest objects (it reduces total amount a lot), etc.
Any PP? I'm colorblind so I have to rely on the camera for much of the work.
1.

Your first shot makes all of the macro shots from the past week look terrible by comparison, because you've got the depth of field needed here, and most other shots have had insufficient depth of field - as in your second shot

#1: Lighting seems a bit flat and the spider's soft... helps us diagnose causes if you post EXIF data. It's not an attractive flower, but there's certainly some drama with that spider. I don't know much about flowers generally... what kind of scale are we seeing here?

#2: in addition to be less interesting for the shallow DOF as Robert points out, the lighting fades rapidly accentuating the lack of depth, and it is quite badly blown in the red channel which leaves the petals lacking detail and texture.

Cheers, Tony

Seems half is learning techniques and technology, the other half is learning to see, so this is a great help!

The flower w/ spider is a very small orange flower. I tend to be attracted to decay in photos, not as a morbid thing but because the process shows structure, but looking at it fresh from your comment I can see how it could be ugly instead of interesting (not your words).

Tonydee, is it the red channel of RGB you mean, or just the red area (which is certainly blown out)? In your cc regarding another's photo of tulips you also referred to red channel, only there it was not red areas I saw as blown but yellow. Are you talking about RGB red channel, or red region of photo (which is very blown in mine)?
... wondering if you're seeing something I'm missing.

EXIF:
Aperture : F2.8
Exposure Bias : 0
Exposure Mode : Auto
Exposure Time : 1/20 s
FNumber : F2.8
Flash : No, compulsory
Focal Length : 7.3 mm
Metering Mode : Multi-segment
Shutter speed : 1/20 s
White Balance : Manual

What happened to the rose shot - the monochrome. That was far and away the best one of the bunch. It had the textures, the DOF that Robert mentioned, a lovely tonal range, and most of all, excellent use of the frame. These may be technically competent - but that only gets you so far. The rose shot beautiful

Sorry to see it go - because the one place that shot should go is a gallery wall.

Rad

fitzhugh wrote in post #7779213
Tonydee, is it the red channel of RGB you mean, or just the red area (which is certainly blown out)? In your cc regarding another's photo of tulips you also referred to red channel, only there it was not red areas I saw as blown but yellow. Are you talking about RGB red channel, or red region of photo (which is very blown in mine)?
... wondering if you're seeing something I'm missing.

In this case, the red channel is blown and it's the red petals that are affected. As you say though, sometimes the red channel has a strong splash of green or blue mixed in and the affected region isn't actually red.

Sometimes i say "the red channel" is blown because people might not understand how a red petal can be blown without being white, and to emphasise that the other channels are fine. I'll make sure to mention the areas of the photo that are affected in future... that'll be more complete.

BTW, the other day in another forum I expressed some boredom with the macro capabilities of my 5D and current lenses, much to the surprise of another 5D (albeit mk II) owner. Might not be the case if I sported his 180mm and MPE65 lenses, but anyway - as you've illustrated so effectively in your first shot - the ability of smaller sensors to have greater depth of field is a tremendous advantage and indeed the reason I sometimes prefer macro with my G9. So, do continue to make the most of what your camera is naturally good at.

Gotta see this rose now too .

Cheers, Tony

This is my first foray into this "actually showing others your photos" thing... I was learning a lot from reading feedback of other users' photos and realized I already know my photos are a messy mix of some good and lots to improve. The positive feedback is encouraging and the criticism so helpful.

Here is the rose, though I'm posting both the original version and an edit I just made because I thought the flower was washed out and blown highlights , sure makes me wish for raw - used CHDK briefly, then it stopped being able to load the hack

Edit, too dark?:

What makes the shot for me, aside from the technical accuracy, is the rose - long a symbol of love, and purity, being impaled by this dagger.

Well done.

(Now all you need to learn is to be able to recognize that when you see it, so you won't remove the wrong one!)

Rad

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

fitzhugh wrote in post #7783533
Here is the rose, though I'm posting both the original version and an edit I just made because I thought the flower was washed out and blown highlights , sure makes me wish for raw - used CHDK briefly, then it stopped being able to load the hack
So, tonydee, what are you noticing when you see that just the red channel is blown? What lets you know a single channel is blown (other than viewing histograms for RGB)?

I never thought about the difference in DOF, didn't realize the small size made a difference. I see super sharp macro photos here taken with DSLRs and go all green with envy so it is encouraging to know I can do something they can't!

Thanks for the help

I really like these latest three... a class above the previous two, and a case where - regarding colour and background - less really is more. Nice focus, texture and depth of field. Well done!

CHDK is good but a bit fiddly. Put it on my G9 for a while, but didn't seem worth the effort as the G9 already does the things I found most useful, like saving RAWs and live histograms, and I like to just hit format after I've transferred all my pictures to my PC.

Re blown colour channels, the symptoms are just a flatness and lack of detail in the blown areas: having reached the maximum brightness in their dominant colour channel(s), the brightness can't keep increasing to convey the curvature or local contrasts, so the 3-dimensionality and surface texture of that part of the image is lost.

You're right: there are some super macro shots taken with DSLRs, but not many have much depth of field, and the very best macro photographers on POTN (like the much hailed LordV), often take photos focused at different depths through the scene and use special software to combine them, just to achieve the kind of depth of field that a smaller sensor inherently provides. I'm not saying you'll achieve quite the same overall quality, but you certainly get a lot of bang for the buck, and much convenience into the bargain.

Cheers,
Tony

Good eye rad! Or mine is bad... I missed the dagger, how funny. Wish I could say I meant to do that

tonydee, you responded as I was typing.

Thanks for all the feedback and info. I like the simplicity of those last shots but wasn't sure if it was just me, so it is great to hear they work for you

re blown channels: that makes perfect sense, and now I see it, or rather it explains what I have been seeing, just didn't know that was the cause. I'll have more control now I know one more thing to consider.

rad, you remind me of the guy that walks through the gallery and points out things to the artist about what HE is trying to say. you seem pretty good at picking up "hidden meanings." maybe you are a conspiracy theorist at heart?