HOME | DD
s-kmp β Yellow Rose 02
Published: 2011-01-27 20:14:23 +0000 UTC; Views: 8161; Favourites: 222; Downloads: 247
Redirect to original
Description
Yellow Rose
featured this here: Softness art Weekly feature XXXIII in
Related content
Comments: 149
Absolutely love the color and light in this photo!
π: 0 β©: 1
Very pretty! I have a photo that is very similar to this!
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks, much appreciated
π: 0 β©: 0
How can I know what camera do u use, if u didnt mention it!!
π: 0 β©: 1
Sorry about that, I don't know why the camera information is missing from this image. I've noticed it is missing on some but not all of my HDR images so I've put that down to that process. This shot, however, is a strait forward shot with a little tidying up in Photoshop so I don't know what's going on.
Anyway my camera is the Fujifilm Finepix S5700
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes I know what cam do u use, and no need to be sorry..
π: 0 β©: 1
Nice soft colors, really like the composition with the flower filling up the whole image. Works really well with the lighting as well, starting brightly lit and then fading towards the lower part of the photo.
Great work!
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you
I took several shots of this bunch of flowers and the lighting was very bright and direct, so much so that I had thought about diffusing it or using a reflector to fill in some of the darker areas. However, this was supposed to be an experimental, playing around type session so I just took several shots. Most of the flowers had various blemishes on their outer leaves so I decided to explore the macro setting on my fixed lens. What happened here is that as I got closer the light reflected off me and was just enough to fill in the otherwise too shaded areas
π: 0 β©: 1
Interesting, I guess I should start wearing white instead of black when going out to photograph. Never considered that it might actually give me some nicer light in macro shots. (Although in hindsight it is quite logical...)
Gotta have to try that one day
π: 0 β©: 1
It wasn't what I was wearing I think it was reflected off my hands.
I had noticed some reddish brown tints on a shot that I had taken a couple of weeks earlier of a leaf with rain drops on it see [link] and it wasn't until noticing how getting in really close interfered with the light on this shot that I started realise what they were. Now when I take close up or macro shots I look very carefully at how the light changes, sometimes quite dramatically, with only small movements
π: 0 β©: 1
Mhm... that is mighty strange. But then I guess when using the FinePix you'll be much closer to the object than I am usually. How far away would you estimated your hand to be from the leaf in that picture?
π: 0 β©: 1
The lens would be between 1 to 4 cm away and depending upon how you hold the camera my hand would be level with that but to the side. What I forgot to mention is that more often than not when you shoot macro's with my camera you end up or your shadow ends up getting in the way
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah okay, yeah that is awfully close, I can see how you could get some unwanted reflections like that. I also know the shadow problem, even with my 150mm mar lens I need to be so close to the subject that I often stand in my own light
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you again for your comments, it's really helpful when people offer constructive replies. Sorry to be a nuisance but perhaps you could help in another way. I'm really starting to get into photography and I want to invest in a better camera. There is a lot of info and opinion on the main manufacturers but what I need help with is the sort of lens to get. I'm going to go for a Cannon or Nikon SLR with a standard lens but would like an additional zoom lens. I would also like to continue to take some macro shots but can't justify buying an additional lens for that. Any thoughts?
π: 0 β©: 1
Mhm... that is difficult. I am not up to date on Nikon lenses so I can't really comment on that. As for Canon kit lenses, I would stay away from them. There are a few bodies that have usable ones, but the normal 18-55 pretty much sucks. For this I would much rather suggest getting the body only and then buy the Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4 OS. Really good lens, nice range and it can even do a little bit of macro. Though with 1:2,7 it's not really a macro lens. You can find one example that I made with a similar lens on my old 300D here: [link] It's not real macro, but it's a start. If you want to go for more range the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 is pretty nice, but also rather pricy. (And offers less macro! Canons is even nicer, but that one is much more expensive and Canon does only offer a 1:8 version) Either one is pretty expensive though. A nice middle ground might be the 150mm macro from Sigma. It's a wonderful prime lens which is still affordable. It can be used both for true macro and other photography. 150mm gives you nice reach, but of course will also limit you because it is a prime. Personally I would start with the body only/17-70mm combination and then see what you 'need' more. Better reach or better macro...
And no bother at all, glad to be of help! Sorry it took me so long to respond, but I was on a fireconvention and had no internet at all! (Oh the horrors 
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you for your comprehensive reply, that's really useful. I can see that I'm going to be um-ing and arr-ing for some considerable time yet before I make a decision. I hadn't thought it would be such a problem but that's what you get for not thinking about it properly. Anyway thanks for your help, it's given me some food for thought
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, sadly there's no 'one-size-fit-all' lens 
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you again, you really have been very helpful and looking at your list gives me more ideas. I'm really interested in that you seem to prefer the Sigma lenses over the Cannon. Is this cost, quality or value for money. I would have gone for the Cannon (if I could afford it) just presuming that it would be more expensive but better, going by the 'you get what you pay for' maxim
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, the Sigma vs. Canon thing is a much discussed topic. There are those who would never touch a Sigma lens, and there are some that swear by it. For me it really depends. The low end Sigma lenses are really not recommended by me. Here I would absolutely go with the Canons. In the high end sector I favor Sigma because they simply cost a lot less with only marginally less quality. (If that) Take the 70-200 2.8 for example. The non stabilized version from Sigma costs β¬600, allows for near macro and includes the tripod ring. (Which is worth around β¬30 alone!) The Canon version does not offer macro, does not include the tripod ring and costs β¬1190. Yes, it might be better weather sealed, might have a bit more edge sharpness and is better suited for rough handling, but is it really twice as good? Or take the 150mm macro. Canon does not even offer an equivalent. There is a 100mm macro for twice the price, and a 180mm macro which only offers a maximum aperture of 3.5 but is almost 3 times as expensive. Now all the reviews I read about the 150mm say that it is near perfect in image quality. So I really ask myself why I should pay more to get less. Yes, some things might be better, but I don't earn money with photography and am pretty happy with the results I am getting.
Would I buy more Canon if money wouldn't be an issue? Sure! Would I buy all Canon? I doubt it.
There is one thing about Sigma though, I HIGHLY suggest buying the lenses in a brick and mortar store! While I never had any issues, a lot of people have problems with quality control from Sigma. So I would only buy the lens in a store that will let me test it with my camera. Make sure the focus is right and spot on and the images you get are sharp.
As for the 'you get what you pay for' maxim. Do not forget that a brand name is worth something as well. People will pay more for a brand name product simply because it is a brand name. For Canon I would think about a fourth of the price is actually the name, and in case of a white lens it might even be a third. Sigma cannot afford to do that, so if you factor that into the equation you'll realize that the difference is often not as big as one thinks.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you once again for your comprehensive reply, that's really very useful, I should think you have already saved me a great deal of time and effort in research. What is it they say 'act in haste repent at leisure' the trouble with buying the wrong camera or lens is that you often can't afford to put it right and the repent at leisure part of this saying really could become a very painful experience indeed
π: 0 β©: 1
Hehe, yeah that is certainly true. I've done my share of learning, though thankfully I was mostly able to grow into my equipment and use it successfully for a couple of years before realizing it's crap
π: 0 β©: 1
Well thankfully I hope you have saved me from that fate, in fact I feel that if I were to go and buy a camera and a couple of lenses tomorrow I would not end up disappointed so thank you for that. I can safely say that would not have been the case just a week ago
π: 0 β©: 0
Thank you, much appreciated
π: 0 β©: 1
No problem. YouΒ΄re always very welcome!
π: 0 β©: 1
a face looking to the bottom,right corner
these folds in the middle create the eye ^^
π: 0 β©: 1
no problem
sry for annoying
π: 0 β©: 1
No it's not annoying, it's just once someone can see something like that and you can't it's frustrating. It's good for you to be commenting and sharing you thoughts; that's what people want
Most people, don't comment or some even download your image without a comment or a fave and when they do comment it's usually "nice shot", "good photo" etc. etc... It's good to get genuine feedback and comments like yours could lead onto other things like I was just thinking it would be interesting to try and create a realistic image that was manipulated so that it looked like a face. Could make for some interesting pieces and they would have been generated for your initial comment
π: 0 β©: 1
youΒ΄re right
look here :
[link]
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks for your comment, It's really appreciated
π: 0 β©: 0
Thanks for your comment, It's much appreciated
π: 0 β©: 0
I like the composition, a little different.
and the color is beautiful
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks for your comment, It's much appreciated
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>