HSS: As stated in prior post, I am not a flower photog...maybe a photog who takes pics of flowers! But, I am trying to get better. Its just not my thing right now. But will follow...

Hip Coyote

As stated in prior post, I am not a flower photog...maybe a photog who takes pics of flowers! But, I am trying to get better. Its just not my thing right now. But will follow Shapiro's lead on this when I get a chance.

Here was an experiment using back lighting and high speed sync, in broad daylight. Kinda interesting. When this was submitted at my camera club, the evaluating pro didn't recognized high speed sync and thought the image was manipulated quite a bit...it was not too much.

I am away from the my files so only have this little thumbnail. Of course, all CC is welcome.

Have at it.

Hip

FunkyL Loc: MD

The lighting is very dramatic - makes the flowers look like they are emitting their own inner light in the darkness. Enough hints of stems and leaves to anchor them; they don't appear to be floating in outer space. I'd have placed the flowers a little higher in the frame - a bit less black at the top, a bit more at the bottom.

Hip Coyote

FunkyL wrote:

The lighting is very dramatic - makes the flowers look like they are emitting their own inner light in the darkness. Enough hints of stems and leaves to anchor them; they don't appear to be floating in outer space. I'd have placed the flowers a little higher in the frame - a bit less black at the top, a bit more at the bottom.

Good point on framing...when I get back to the original I will see if i have some crop room left.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

IMHO the lighting makes the shot. Since my last post I have been playing around with how much background to include in a basically "On Black" image. I think you got it exactly right here.

Hip Coyote

Curmudgeon wrote:

IMHO the lighting makes the shot. Since my last post I have been playing around with how much background to include in a basically "On Black" image. I think you got it exactly right here.

It was a weird shot in that it was back lighting with the off camera flash under the plants...it did work.

Thanks for the comments!

Hip

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I love the lighting on this one.
--Bob

Hip Coyote wrote:

As stated in prior post, I am not a flower photog.... (show quote)

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

Very nicely done!

Jim-Pops Loc: Granbury, Texas

This is something I've never seen before. Such a unique look. Extremely powerful/dramatic image.
You'r saying high speed flash. To me that is indicating faster than 250 sec. You said you used a flash behind the flower, understand. The light must have been quite powerful. Was it a strobe or a speed light and if I can ask what brand and wattage.
Jim

Hip Coyote

Jim-Pops wrote:

This is something I've never seen before. Such a unique look. Extremely powerful/dramatic image.
You'r saying high speed flash. To me that is indicating faster than 250 sec. You said you used a flash behind the flower, understand. The light must have been quite powerful. Was it a strobe or a speed light and if I can ask what brand and wattage.
Jim

the ss was at 1/1000. Flash was the Oly 600R in HSS mode. I had the very small Oly FL-LM2 flash on the hotshoe that triggers the 600R. (not a great system...Godox is much better in this regard which I now use.) I shoot a micro 43 system. I had a mag mod on the flash as well. The flash was placed in the flowerpot beneath the plants. I have no idea on wattage. And the lens was the macro so I was quite close.

It did not score in high merit at my evaluation with the club. I suspect that the pro did not now what he was looking at...it was totally foreign to him. I take comments for what ever instrucibve value I can get and forget the rest. Not my hill to die on to get some random score. I think it got a 7 which is not merit in my little club. I think it was better than that. I have had sub-par pics score high as well...so...

Jim-Pops Loc: Granbury, Texas

Hip Coyote wrote:

the ss was at 1/1000. Flash was the Oly 600R in H... (show quote)

Thanks so much for responding. I have to try this out. Have to go to the florist and get some flowers. I enjoy so much trying something new. Thanks so much for posting and explaining the whole process.
Jim

BTW hard to figure how the judges score without discussion.

Hip Coyote

they did discuss. but they also have about 50 images lined up...he simply said it looked so processed he did not know how to judge it really....back then seriously processed pics were not allowed...that has since changed.

So he said 7 and we moved on!

raymondh Loc: Walker, MI

!!

srg

Hip Coyote wrote:

As stated in prior post, I am not a flower photog.... (show quote)

So beautiful

User ID

Hip Coyote wrote:

As stated in prior post, I am not a flower photog.... (show quote)

I found myself obliged to play the judge, forunately on a panel of three. It was immediately obvious that the page of rules I was given required me to render high scores on boring dreck and low scores on interesting stuff. IOW points were awarded for compliance above all other parameters.

I just ignored all their rules, was very pleased to hear gasps and grumbling from the great unwashed, and acoarst they never again asked me to suffer another evening of bad doughnuts and fake photography.

Clearly, I hold such club competition in extreeeeeeeemely low regard. I spoze some participants may learn something but the more fortunate participants will learn nothing.

Hip Coyote

User ID wrote:

I found myself obliged to play the judge, forunat... (show quote)

Fortunately we usually have high quality judges. But I take all comments with a grain is salt…like tequila.