Shooting Stars: I'm curious as to thoughts regarding composition, and maybe even intent. This pasture was full of shooting stars (which are quite small), but I was trying to capture...

jteee Loc: Montana

I'm curious as to thoughts regarding composition, and maybe even intent. This pasture was full of shooting stars (which are quite small), but I was trying to capture detail, the fact that the pasture was covered with them, and the background environment. I purposefully used a medium DOF as I didn't want the background to dominate the foreground. Bad thinking?
6D, 24-105 f4 IS USM @ 105, 1/100, f16, ISO 200.

(Download)

Nightski

You know, Jtee, I was reading that when we look at landscapes that our eyes really only focus on one thing at a time and then move on. So I don't think this is bad thinking. I do with the mountains were in a little sharper focus. It would work if both the flowers and mountain were in focus too. I think it would have more impact that way, and if you have the flowers big in the foreground they will get the attention they deserve.

There is a black spot in the top third middle of the pic that could easily be cloned out ... even by me. LOL

Lovely color, perfectly exposed. Nice image.

jteee Loc: Montana

Nightski wrote:

You know, Jtee, I was reading that when we look at... (show quote)

Thanks for your response. One of the problems I faced was the fact that the flowers are so small, it is difficult to emphasize them and still get extended DOF. Sounds like I need to go back up there and try again (I'm always looking for an excuse). LOL
I hadn't noticed the spot, thanks for pointing that out. I researched the photos, and it is a small sagebush casting a very dark shadow. Maybe I will have to venture out and press the clone button and see what kind of a mess I can make.

Nightski

It is a beautiful place. If I lived close to it, I'd be up there every chance I got. I bet those flowers don't last long though. Do they bloom every year like that? It's gorgeous.

jteee Loc: Montana

Nightski wrote:

It is a beautiful place. If I lived close to it, I'd be up there every chance I got. I bet those flowers don't last long though. Do they bloom every year like that? It's gorgeous.

It is beautiful (southwest corner of the Crazy Mountains). No, they don't last long, and normally there are a few bunches of these around, but I have never seen a bloom like this where there were patches literally hundreds of feet long and wide. Pretty cool.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

jteee wrote:

......I purposefully used a medium DOF as I didn't want the background to dominate the foreground. Bad thinking?

It seems to me that photography is very much about taking advantage of what the eye does naturally. I believe the eye tends to home in on the sharpest, most in-focus part of a picture, which in this case is the foreground flowers. I think you could have achieved this effect with less blurring of the background, and doing so would have left the background more engaging than it is. I think even if the background was subtly less sharp than the foreground, that would have been enough to achieve the desired effect - making the flowers the obvious subjects.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

jteee wrote:

I'm curious as to thoughts regarding composition, and maybe even intent. This pasture was full of shooting stars (which are quite small), but I was trying to capture detail, the fact that the pasture was covered with them, and the background environment. I purposefully used a medium DOF as I didn't want the background to dominate the foreground. Bad thinking?
6D, 24-105 f4 IS USM @ 105, 1/100, f16, ISO 200.

Beautiful scene. There's a lot of different ways to skin this cat, so I don't want to pretend I have any one right answer, I'm still learning like most of us here. I like the area of sharp little flowers in the foreground, and that's a valid approach. But the background is SO pretty too that I find myself wanting to see more of it. I agree with what I think RG is suggesting, with the background less OOF but the flowers in the front still the tack sharp center of interest.

It would be an interesting scene to shoot multiple photos from a single tripod spot with different planes of focus and selectively blend the layers. Last year I had the good fortune to be in Rainier in the early wildflower season when there was still tons of snow on the mountains, and I wish I'd tried some like that. As it was, I had some with sharp lupine/defocused moutons and some with OOF lupine and sharp mountains.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I'm quite happy to err on the side of sharpness, because if you want diffuseness, it can be done very selectively in PP. But if a picture's lacking in sharpness?.......

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

I was going to agree with the majority here until I downloaded it. I think this works ok. Maybe a little great DOF, but the mountains don't have to be tack sharp, your subject is the flowers. It would be interesting if you had shot it several different ways to see which you liked best.

jteee Loc: Montana

Thanks RG, Mini, and CM for your comments. I think the general consensus is that I should have gone with more DOF. I did slightly on a few frames, and the mountains are a little less OOF, but it was a bugger because the flowers are so small. I may go and try again.
Mini - I have never tried the focus stacking thing, but am very intrigued. This would have been a perfect example for trying it, I just didn't think of it. Can you pull that off in Photoshop?

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

jteee wrote:

Thanks RG, Mini, and CM for your comments. I think the general consensus is that I should have gone with more DOF. I did slightly on a few frames, and the mountains are a little less OOF, but it was a bugger because the flowers are so small. I may go and try again.
Mini - I have never tried the focus stacking thing, but am very intrigued. This would have been a perfect example for trying it, I just didn't think of it. Can you pull that off in Photoshop?

I'm just starting to try it. I've always admired pro landscaper Mark Adamus for his fantastic landscapes that have sharp elements front to back. Bob Yankle recently posted a tutorial in the PP section on manual stacking in Elements. I used it to pull off a version in Photoshop that was acceptable to me as a first effort. I manually blended some foreground flowers with some background birds and bushes. So, I have hope. I'm an incurable fiddler anyway.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

jteee wrote:

... This pasture was full of shooting stars (which are quite small), but I was trying to capture detail, ...

While I like the concept, I think you could have achieved what you wanted and kept the background in focus by getting closer to one of the flowers.

As it is, you have flowers, but none of them are dominant, therefore the eye may look at them, but then moves on to the background and is confused.

If I may suggest a solution, get lower placing a single flower in focus and using the mountains as the background. Pink against white.

Other than that use hyperfocal distance to keep them both in focus. https://www.google.com/#q=hyperfocal+distance

Thank you for sharing. S-

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

jteee wrote:

I'm curious as to thoughts regarding composition, and maybe even intent. This pasture was full of shooting stars (which are quite small), but I was trying to capture detail, the fact that the pasture was covered with them, and the background environment. I purposefully used a medium DOF as I didn't want the background to dominate the foreground. Bad thinking?
6D, 24-105 f4 IS USM @ 105, 1/100, f16, ISO 200.

There has been, rightly, much discussion about the oof mountains...necessary or not? and RG stated that the eye sees what it looks at...sounds like "Duh"...but it's profound. My concern with bringing the mountains within hyperfocality isn't their ability to distract from the beautifully focused shooting stars in the FG...it's that those exquisitely focused blossoms would be lost among all the damned identically hued blossoms behind them if they, too, were in focus,
Damned if you do, not too bad off if y'don't do anything( in my opinion)

Impact: 3.5
tech: 3
comp: 3
9.5/15 a nice image

Dave in SD

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

I am going to differ from just about everything that has been said.

I find the mountains distracting and the more in focus they are, the more distracting to me they will be. For me, this picture is about those delicate flowers, not some distant mountains. I am not interested in that "context". If you are, go photograph them separately. Therefore, I would frame this lower to capture more of the stems (they look cut off here), step back with a long lens, and use a large aperture. The hardest thing about this would be the aperture. You want large for narrow depth of field (i.e., bokeh) but small enough for depth of field as those flowers move in the breeze and optimal lens sharpness.

If I assume the white on the mountains is snow, then the color balance is off. I do like the three-dimensional effect of the flowers.

Now for all the "you do not know what you are talking about".

jteee Loc: Montana

minniev wrote:

I'm just starting to try it. I've always admired pro landscaper Mark Adamus for his fantastic landscapes that have sharp elements front to back. Bob Yankle recently posted a tutorial in the PP section on manual stacking in Elements. I used it to pull off a version in Photoshop that was acceptable to me as a first effort. I manually blended some foreground flowers with some background birds and bushes. So, I have hope. I'm an incurable fiddler anyway.

Thanks I will try to find the post by Yankle. Adamus' work is pretty spectacular, and technically way out there.