I'm serious. Tell me what you truly think of this image, and how I can improve it. Personally, I really like the image, so I know that I may not be being as self-critical as I should. Also feel free to comment on the post processing, the crop, the composition, the exposure, comment on it all. Please. Wait, let me grab tissues first just in case you are really harsh ;)
Alright I'm prepared to take it. CC away!
You now know what shallow DOF is, nice. Go utilize it in the field.
Sorry, but I'm not sure what you are trying to say?
I just don't think there is enough happening to make a good photo. No emotion etc and no action. Sorry.
A very close macro shot of the lower droplet, with its lens like reproduction of the area around it might have made a picture, tough to shoot of course, but this is just emptiness.
Not trying to be harsh but there is no point sugar coating it, either. Yes it is well exposed and more or less sharp with good, shallow, depth of field but first and foremost we need a subject that deserves a photograph and we don't have one here.
Thanks, I just dont understand how some photos of something so simple are excellent but this one isn't, how would you differentiate between the two in terms of composition etc?
Had you gotten closer, and shown a fully formed droplet about to fall, that would have created a bit more drama. Nothing is happening here, and nothing is about to happen.
Also, move around, and try framing the droplets within the light and dark parts of the background, to see which looks best. Or catch the light passing through.
Ah I now see what you mean. Thanks you, that makes a lot of sense. I did try to get closer but every time I did my shot was out of focus, probably due to the windy day that I took it on.
Regular lenses don't focus close enough to shoot drops of water such that they appear very large in the image. You need a special lens called a macro lens. As I said this is not an easy thing to do even with an appropriate lens because one gets very little in focus and a twig moving in the breeze will be constantly in and out of focus, all the time. You would need to get very close, too.
Normally with macro shots we pre-set the focus to the closes possible distance then move the whole camera towards or away from the subject to find focus. That way we know we will get the best magnification. Also there is another technical issue. All true macro lenses will allow the image to be full size, 1:1 magnification as they say. At this magnification one looses 2 stops of the light entering the lens, so we need more light, longer shutter speeds, higher ISO or wider apertures. So, uness there is plenty of light we will struggle, especially with a twig in a breeze, even the lightest possible zephyr, because our slow shutter speed will allow the subject to move during the exposure, or the wider aperture will only afford a very very shallow depth of field or the high ISO will degrade the quality. So like I said, difficult. Some lenses only go to 1/2 size magnification despite being marketed as macro. Technically they are close-up lenses, macro means 1:1. These less powerful lenses are likley less expensive and can have extention tubes to move the focus closer, making them true macro capable lenses, for those shots when 1:1 maginifcation is vital. Mostly we don't need 1:1 and a 2:1 capable lens is typically more than adequate. At a magnification of 2:1 (1/2 size) the light loss is reduced to just 1 stop, which helps as well. Also at the same aperture the depth of field will be slightly less of a problem, still very shallow but not as crazy shallow.
I've got a 50 and a 100 for getting in close. And tomorrow, I will have my 800, for getting close to big things that are dangerous.
Don't confuse macro / close-up lenses with long focus / telephoto lenses.
Macro / close up lenses are special lenses designed to provide the capability to focus on a subject just an inch or two infront of the lens and to provide their best optical performance at such distances.
Long / telephoto lenses are generally designed to provide a view similar to what we would expect from a telescope or binoculars. In other words to allow us to make very distant subjects big enough to fill our pictures so we can see them in great detail, by cropping out much of the scene that wider lenses would include. These lenses do no afford close up focusing capability as they are optically optimised for distant subjects.
Typically for full frame DSLRs macro/close up lenses are 50mm or 100mm focal length but are very different optically to the non macro lenses of these same focal lengths.
Regular long focus or telephoto lenses have minimum object distances, closest focusing distances, measured in feet, so are useless for small subjects seen close-up work.
Oh, I know the difference betweem my macro and tele lenses.
I thought so but was not sure. Hopefully some others may now know about the differences, too.
Yes, but tele lenses are also decent for filling the frame with a relatively shallow DOF, probably better than my 24 mm "macro"
Big things that are dangerous like what?
I shot bears in Alaska last summer, and have come across elk here in Utah. Just got a Sigma 300-800 f5.6 to allow for a little more room, while still filling the frame.
For closer work, I have the Canon 50mm and 100mm macro lenses. I prefer the 50, and actually use it in my studio for most of my product shots.
Thanks for sharing these valuable points Ian. -JP
Ah, i did not know all of that. My lens claims that it is macro, but I'm not sure. I will have to get the real shot that i envisioned, hopefully overcoming those challenges. Thanks for the feedback and the useful and informative details.
I see several things....
No subject jumps out at me. Where should my eye be drawn. So, composition needs some work.
The dof is nice, but in combination with no obvious subject it now just adds to my eye confusion.
The overall color is fine, if you are attempting to convey winter, cold, wet, etc.
I may have changed this shot to a tighter macro of the larger water drop.
IMHO....Craig
Thanks Craig! What I expected was that the shallow DOF would help identify the subject. And the winter/cold/wet look was what I wanted to convey, so at least I got one thing going for me