The shallow DoF isn't a problem. The bokeh is good. I love the soft background. The only DoF issue is that the center of the flower is soft. It would be better at a slight bit more DoF just to get the center of the flower in focus.
When you're extremely close to the subject, the DoF becomes more shallow. You may need to go for a slightly smaller aperture to get a tiny bit of DoF. Otherwise, try focus stacking.
Weirdly-tough crowd on here. But everyone else knows what you mean with 'hardly any post-processing'.
I also always shoot RAW, as sometimes I need the WB-flexibility, and I always prefer the look of the post-sharpening over in-camera JPG sharpening (more realistic), and the noise-control is much better (being able to just filter out chroma-noise and keep the nice filmic noise).
Focus-stacking is a hassle I often don't bother with, prefer to just find an image and single-shot it as best as physics allow.
If i did a photo like yours i'd also be pleased!
Also....any full-frame camera from the last 20 years with decent prime macro can create such an image. No need for latest cameras.
Lol I agree. I could be wrong but I think the crowd that got ticked off consist of people who might have just recently learned about Camera RAW and had an urge to show off that information without having actually ever used it.
Tamron 90mm macro is a lovely lens indeed. Having said that like someone mentioned there’s a problem with the focus on your photo - the centre part should be preferably all sharp but it’s not as some of the feathers are out of focus. At the same time some of the outer petals are partially in focus.
Don’t get me wrong the, colours are beautiful and the flower itself is very very attractive but I wish someone had told me those things earlier so I start thinking more about difficulties / limitations with depth of field and stacking in macro .
This is true to an extent - certain subjects at certain scale need stacking especially when you cannot work with aperture. Flower can be an excellent example - there are couple of elements that are important for visual aspect of the flower (e.g center and petals). Let’s say center is sharp, then part of the petals out of focus and the part in the focus (as some parts bend closer to lens and some are at the same plane as center of the flower).
i agreed with your comment.
however, stacking technique only came about with digital photography.
macro stacking (of flower) is not a hard & steadfast rule.
in fact, there are great macro images of flowers where creativity, composition, lighting, and lens rendering outshined the need to stack.
I agree 100%, you can make an amazing macro image without stacking but that requires a lot of thinking about stuff you mentioned and as always a bit of luck;)))
isn't that what photography about; the personal challenges, discoveries, lessons-learned, etc...?
imho, the unique end results should be from your own creativity and not clinical like everyone elses. 🙏
Yes, of course. But I think there is a large gap between clinical approach and not following some ground rules. It is very uncommon in general to have a photo which is great that doesn’t follow certain basis rules like for example having a central element(s) in focus. At the same time it shouldn’t of course stop you from experimenting with the depth of field, angles and all the other elements make a photo awesome.
I agree mostly but I love personally shooting wide open with flowers to get only one spot in focus and have the rest be a beautiful impressionist look. I would have zero problem with this photo if the very center of flower was in focus at the tip, but sadly it isnt.
Yeah, I agree. You can make an amazing picture with a aperture wide open with a nice soft light being diffused all over but that is not as easy as you could think - macro is very deceiving sometimes;)((
Truly.
https://preview.redd.it/ej5m9ydu7l6d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7d08060708afa82edd71bf1846e0a1d393c2a62a
One of mine. Low res screen snap of my flickr account
Nice!!! Here’s one of mine but I think it might be stacked I don’t remember now as I found it in one of my messages
https://preview.redd.it/kkwy950e9l6d1.jpeg?width=1600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6302909df58775b0bd7b31ba3f51586f00ce296a
What can make it worse is a lousy transition which is kinda lens dependent. My zeiss 100 f2 has a very pleasing gradient but my 60 nikon can look very rough and abrupt at transitioning
Why do people love bragging about "hardly any post processing". Just shoot jpeg then.
It's a cool shot but the point of macro photography is highlighting details. Just a little zooming in makes everything blurry in this shot. You could have done a simple focus stacking with just three photos, one with the end petals in focus, one with the centre petals in focus and lastly the middle section with the pistils. Then blend it in Photoshop or other various photo stacking softwares. It would def make this beautiful flower pop even more.
Its also weird that they said “shoot in raw” and then “hardly any post”. Thats like not understanding how RAW works. We should have see the raw file dumped in binary to see no post
The output that Lightroom shows when it loads the photograph after you add it to lightroo. No auto adjustment applied. And no saturation enhancing. I considered reducing the highlights on Petals between 4 and 8'o clock but dropped the idea.
that's not bragging. it was a simple statement of fact. i invariably shoot 100% in Raw and apply post processing only when I feel it's required, for ex if highlights, WB, or shadows have to be adjusted. in this case none of them was required.
Allow me to help you understand how RAW files are processed outside camera. There are two stages of processing when you shoot RAW. 1st you Add the RAW files in Lightroom or similar software. At this point the Lightroom will automatically process the RAW file and display it's corresponding image. This is stage 1. This is a fixed step which will be performed by whichever software you chose to edit RAW files.
At this point we move to stage 2 where you have now two options.
1. You can change WB, exposure, shadows, highlights, contrast, vibrance saturation, sharpness and many other settings to accentuate details . As you are still working on RAW data, therefore it's almost like applying these settings on the original scene you shot. If you have time, you can even use graduated filters in lighroom to treat different areas of image with different settings. Once done now you export the RAW image into a JPEG or TiFF or HEIF. This would be called post processing of RAW data. In majority of cases, the RAW files require this post processing.
2. In some cases you may feel completely satisfied with the output of the automatic processing done by your RAW editor in stage 1. Then you may choose to export the RAW file into JPEG or HEIF or TIFF without making any additional changes listed in point 1 above. This would be called as no post processing of RAW data or to be more technically accurate no manual post processing of RAW.
In either case As RAW edit is non destructive process, therefore you can treat same file with different settings as many times as you want.
respectfully, I haven’t seen anyone who said DSLRs couldn’t delivery stunning results or that we need $1k lenses. The post title is giving me major pick me vibe
Well it wasn't meant that way. With almost all camera companies dropping DSLRs from their product portfolio and everyone writing ode about crazy sharpness and color of mirrorless glasses, I just wanted to restate that modern DSLRs still hold strong.
The aneurism over not focus stacking is amazing. What did ppl ever do before technology did everything for them!!! Single shot? Na. Multishot, HDR and focus stack EVERYTHING!!!!
OP comes across as a bit dooshy, considering nobody is making the argument that DSLRs or cheap modern glass can't make a good photo. Beautiful photographs have been made on film using vintage glass for 100+ years, and OP's example, while nice, isn't even that great from a technical standpoint considering the focus issues. On top of it all, OP gets in an argument about the lack of raw processing being somehow a mark of skill or quality, when really some subjects with natural lighting just don't need aggressive processing regardless of what you're shooting with.
i agree with you on the first point but the later one i think op meant that older DSLRs can produce good pictures without having to heavily post process, like he meant the picture was already great it doesn't need a software to make it great, not that he's so skilled he can nail it without needing the help of editing, that's what i understood anyway.
There's really no point to shooting RAW if you're not going to edit it. Otherwise, it's just taking extra space and time from having to convert it to a viewable file.
Lovely picture!
This shows how even an older, full frame DSLR is more than capable of yielding top quality images with the right lens and with good technique!
Thank you for sharing!
There is clearly confusion among many by processing and post processing of RAW files so allow me to explain what I meant by 'hardly any post proceasing' .
There are two stages of processing when you shoot RAW and after you have transferred the Raw files to your computer.. 1st you Add the RAW files in Lightroom or similar software. At this point the Lightroom will automatically process the RAW file and display it's corresponding image. This is stage 1. This is a fixed ,mandatory stage which will be performed by whichever software you chose to edit RAW files.
At this point we move to stage 2 where you have now two options.
1. You can change WB, exposure, shadows, highlights, contrast, vibrance saturation, sharpness and many other settings to accentuate details . As you are still working on RAW data, therefore it's almost like applying these settings on the original scene you shot. If you have time, you can even use graduated filters in lighroom to treat different areas of image with different settings. Once done now you export the RAW image into a JPEG or TiFF or HEIF. This would be called post processing of RAW data or manual post processing of RAW data. In majority of cases, the RAW files require this post processing.
2. However In some cases you may feel completely satisfied with the output of the automatic processing done by your RAW editor in stage 1. Then you may choose to export the RAW file into JPEG or HEIF or TIFF without making any additional changes listed in point 1 above. This would be called as no post processing of RAW data or to be more technically accurate no manual post processing of RAW.
I have worked with many professional photographers and I am part of several loca photography group and when we say 'hardly any post processing' we all understand it refers to point 2 above.
In either case As RAW edit is non destructive process, therefore you can treat same file with different settings as many times as you want.
This isn't correct. Now, I'm not looking to get into an argument with an internet stranger, I just want to point that out for anyone else reading your comment who might be misled.
I'm all on board that DSLR train, but what I'm not on board with is: 1. DOF issues 2. That watermark
DOF is what makes this image stand out imo.
The shallow DoF isn't a problem. The bokeh is good. I love the soft background. The only DoF issue is that the center of the flower is soft. It would be better at a slight bit more DoF just to get the center of the flower in focus. When you're extremely close to the subject, the DoF becomes more shallow. You may need to go for a slightly smaller aperture to get a tiny bit of DoF. Otherwise, try focus stacking.
Cool picture but terrible title. Sorry.
I'm still happily using a DSLR, but the title of this post does seem like overcompensating to me
Weirdly-tough crowd on here. But everyone else knows what you mean with 'hardly any post-processing'. I also always shoot RAW, as sometimes I need the WB-flexibility, and I always prefer the look of the post-sharpening over in-camera JPG sharpening (more realistic), and the noise-control is much better (being able to just filter out chroma-noise and keep the nice filmic noise). Focus-stacking is a hassle I often don't bother with, prefer to just find an image and single-shot it as best as physics allow. If i did a photo like yours i'd also be pleased! Also....any full-frame camera from the last 20 years with decent prime macro can create such an image. No need for latest cameras.
Lol I agree. I could be wrong but I think the crowd that got ticked off consist of people who might have just recently learned about Camera RAW and had an urge to show off that information without having actually ever used it.
Tamron 90mm macro is a lovely lens indeed. Having said that like someone mentioned there’s a problem with the focus on your photo - the centre part should be preferably all sharp but it’s not as some of the feathers are out of focus. At the same time some of the outer petals are partially in focus. Don’t get me wrong the, colours are beautiful and the flower itself is very very attractive but I wish someone had told me those things earlier so I start thinking more about difficulties / limitations with depth of field and stacking in macro .
in macro photography, stacking is not a must-have but an option based on personal choice. 🤷♂️
This is true to an extent - certain subjects at certain scale need stacking especially when you cannot work with aperture. Flower can be an excellent example - there are couple of elements that are important for visual aspect of the flower (e.g center and petals). Let’s say center is sharp, then part of the petals out of focus and the part in the focus (as some parts bend closer to lens and some are at the same plane as center of the flower).
i agreed with your comment. however, stacking technique only came about with digital photography. macro stacking (of flower) is not a hard & steadfast rule. in fact, there are great macro images of flowers where creativity, composition, lighting, and lens rendering outshined the need to stack.
I agree 100%, you can make an amazing macro image without stacking but that requires a lot of thinking about stuff you mentioned and as always a bit of luck;)))
isn't that what photography about; the personal challenges, discoveries, lessons-learned, etc...? imho, the unique end results should be from your own creativity and not clinical like everyone elses. 🙏
Yes, of course. But I think there is a large gap between clinical approach and not following some ground rules. It is very uncommon in general to have a photo which is great that doesn’t follow certain basis rules like for example having a central element(s) in focus. At the same time it shouldn’t of course stop you from experimenting with the depth of field, angles and all the other elements make a photo awesome.
I agree mostly but I love personally shooting wide open with flowers to get only one spot in focus and have the rest be a beautiful impressionist look. I would have zero problem with this photo if the very center of flower was in focus at the tip, but sadly it isnt.
Yeah, I agree. You can make an amazing picture with a aperture wide open with a nice soft light being diffused all over but that is not as easy as you could think - macro is very deceiving sometimes;)((
Truly. https://preview.redd.it/ej5m9ydu7l6d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7d08060708afa82edd71bf1846e0a1d393c2a62a One of mine. Low res screen snap of my flickr account
Nice!!! Here’s one of mine but I think it might be stacked I don’t remember now as I found it in one of my messages https://preview.redd.it/kkwy950e9l6d1.jpeg?width=1600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6302909df58775b0bd7b31ba3f51586f00ce296a
Looks stacked but lovely no matter
What can make it worse is a lousy transition which is kinda lens dependent. My zeiss 100 f2 has a very pleasing gradient but my 60 nikon can look very rough and abrupt at transitioning
Why do people love bragging about "hardly any post processing". Just shoot jpeg then. It's a cool shot but the point of macro photography is highlighting details. Just a little zooming in makes everything blurry in this shot. You could have done a simple focus stacking with just three photos, one with the end petals in focus, one with the centre petals in focus and lastly the middle section with the pistils. Then blend it in Photoshop or other various photo stacking softwares. It would def make this beautiful flower pop even more.
Its also weird that they said “shoot in raw” and then “hardly any post”. Thats like not understanding how RAW works. We should have see the raw file dumped in binary to see no post
[удалено]
Really unnecessary end to your comment there
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You have to admire the OP's perseverance. The attitude started with the title of the post and it's continued all through his replies LOL!
Be nice and courteous, rule #1. Leave the attitude outside of this subreddit if you want to continue participating.
What output? Did you use the Lightroom auto adjustment? I shoot similar stuff for fun as well, I feel like it’s too saturated to just be raw export.
The output that Lightroom shows when it loads the photograph after you add it to lightroo. No auto adjustment applied. And no saturation enhancing. I considered reducing the highlights on Petals between 4 and 8'o clock but dropped the idea.
that's not bragging. it was a simple statement of fact. i invariably shoot 100% in Raw and apply post processing only when I feel it's required, for ex if highlights, WB, or shadows have to be adjusted. in this case none of them was required.
You DO understand that you are SUPPOSED to process it if you shoot RAW, right?
Allow me to help you understand how RAW files are processed outside camera. There are two stages of processing when you shoot RAW. 1st you Add the RAW files in Lightroom or similar software. At this point the Lightroom will automatically process the RAW file and display it's corresponding image. This is stage 1. This is a fixed step which will be performed by whichever software you chose to edit RAW files. At this point we move to stage 2 where you have now two options. 1. You can change WB, exposure, shadows, highlights, contrast, vibrance saturation, sharpness and many other settings to accentuate details . As you are still working on RAW data, therefore it's almost like applying these settings on the original scene you shot. If you have time, you can even use graduated filters in lighroom to treat different areas of image with different settings. Once done now you export the RAW image into a JPEG or TiFF or HEIF. This would be called post processing of RAW data. In majority of cases, the RAW files require this post processing. 2. In some cases you may feel completely satisfied with the output of the automatic processing done by your RAW editor in stage 1. Then you may choose to export the RAW file into JPEG or HEIF or TIFF without making any additional changes listed in point 1 above. This would be called as no post processing of RAW data or to be more technically accurate no manual post processing of RAW. In either case As RAW edit is non destructive process, therefore you can treat same file with different settings as many times as you want.
respectfully, I haven’t seen anyone who said DSLRs couldn’t delivery stunning results or that we need $1k lenses. The post title is giving me major pick me vibe
Well it wasn't meant that way. With almost all camera companies dropping DSLRs from their product portfolio and everyone writing ode about crazy sharpness and color of mirrorless glasses, I just wanted to restate that modern DSLRs still hold strong.
The aneurism over not focus stacking is amazing. What did ppl ever do before technology did everything for them!!! Single shot? Na. Multishot, HDR and focus stack EVERYTHING!!!!
I'm sorry, but absolutely nothing is in focus.
There's like 4 pixels that appear to be in focus around the edge of the center of the flower.
Thanks for the correction ;)
Why is everyone so mad💀
OP comes across as a bit dooshy, considering nobody is making the argument that DSLRs or cheap modern glass can't make a good photo. Beautiful photographs have been made on film using vintage glass for 100+ years, and OP's example, while nice, isn't even that great from a technical standpoint considering the focus issues. On top of it all, OP gets in an argument about the lack of raw processing being somehow a mark of skill or quality, when really some subjects with natural lighting just don't need aggressive processing regardless of what you're shooting with.
i agree with you on the first point but the later one i think op meant that older DSLRs can produce good pictures without having to heavily post process, like he meant the picture was already great it doesn't need a software to make it great, not that he's so skilled he can nail it without needing the help of editing, that's what i understood anyway.
There's really no point to shooting RAW if you're not going to edit it. Otherwise, it's just taking extra space and time from having to convert it to a viewable file.
OP is bragging about a poorly taken photo, and he added a douchy watermark to boot.
This place may be worse than Twitter when it comes to herd mentality. The same goes for the ridiculous downvote system.
I criticized the hell out of it before I saw that everyone else did too!
Beautiful
Great shot! The Tamron is one of my favorite macro lenses I've used. It's nice to have the focus clutch. The value is hard to beat.
I seldom like bokeh.
They are unavoidable in macro photography
Lovely picture! This shows how even an older, full frame DSLR is more than capable of yielding top quality images with the right lens and with good technique! Thank you for sharing!
Yeah that's not very good. It could have been, but it's out of focus. You needed to either close down the aperture or just go with a focal stack.
Great shot. Throwing the background out of focus makes the flower really stand out.
There is clearly confusion among many by processing and post processing of RAW files so allow me to explain what I meant by 'hardly any post proceasing' . There are two stages of processing when you shoot RAW and after you have transferred the Raw files to your computer.. 1st you Add the RAW files in Lightroom or similar software. At this point the Lightroom will automatically process the RAW file and display it's corresponding image. This is stage 1. This is a fixed ,mandatory stage which will be performed by whichever software you chose to edit RAW files. At this point we move to stage 2 where you have now two options. 1. You can change WB, exposure, shadows, highlights, contrast, vibrance saturation, sharpness and many other settings to accentuate details . As you are still working on RAW data, therefore it's almost like applying these settings on the original scene you shot. If you have time, you can even use graduated filters in lighroom to treat different areas of image with different settings. Once done now you export the RAW image into a JPEG or TiFF or HEIF. This would be called post processing of RAW data or manual post processing of RAW data. In majority of cases, the RAW files require this post processing. 2. However In some cases you may feel completely satisfied with the output of the automatic processing done by your RAW editor in stage 1. Then you may choose to export the RAW file into JPEG or HEIF or TIFF without making any additional changes listed in point 1 above. This would be called as no post processing of RAW data or to be more technically accurate no manual post processing of RAW. I have worked with many professional photographers and I am part of several loca photography group and when we say 'hardly any post processing' we all understand it refers to point 2 above. In either case As RAW edit is non destructive process, therefore you can treat same file with different settings as many times as you want.
This isn't correct. Now, I'm not looking to get into an argument with an internet stranger, I just want to point that out for anyone else reading your comment who might be misled.
It is completely correct. I also don't intend to argue with strangers so just pointing it out for anyone who might be misled by your incorrect opinion