|
|
Post by dorsetmike on Jun 14, 2023 12:15:45 GMT
My own attempts at garden photography have been limited to my own garden (until I moved in 2014) and the National old rose collection at Mottisfont abbey (NT) currently at it's best in June (Near Romsey). Front of my garden
Mottisfont
What makes you think I like roses?
|
|
|
|
Post by peterba on Jun 14, 2023 12:55:53 GMT
My advice is to pick your spot carefully and also try from different levels. Get down low, for example to get the feel of the vegetation, or the height of the trees. Or simply enjoy your stroll.
All good suggestions, Kate. However, I think that the last of these is easily the best. 
To clarify, kate: when I wrote "the last of these", I was referring to the last of your suggestions, not the last in Pete's set of photographs.  |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Jun 14, 2023 12:56:02 GMT
I like all of those images Pete, but that's because the scenes are beautiful and you've framed/composed in a manner which accentuates that. Having said that, I wouldn't award any prizes to them as 'garden photography'. Why not? I think this is a matter of perception in photographic genres, which have been heavily influenced by semi-arbitrary categorisation due to photo contests, salons, and the like. These clearly fit the genre but don't have the 'uniqueness' or wow factor that contests are looking for. So do you want to shoot scenes like this, which beautifully capture the memory of gardens you visited, or are you wanting to tick someone else's boxes on a list you can't even see, for some kind of validation? If it's the former, I think you are doing well, if it's the latter, well, you're weird!  Thank you - so it would seen that maybe I am being over critical of myself. I only called it garden photography because it takes place in gardens. A day out for us is usually to a National Trust property having both a garden (I'm less interested in interiors - seen one seen 'em all sort of thing) and a café, though lately we rediscovered Ness gardens. I don't follow any "genre" - it is more trying to have something that matches what I think I saw. I'm not trying to copy anyone else or tick their boxes. Thank you for the encouragement. I'm going to work through all the replies to my post(s) in turn and this is the first so I won't elaborate but I couple of things have occurred to me - I might come back and edit this reply depending on what else I find written. |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Jun 14, 2023 12:59:09 GMT
Thank you - I'll keep an eye out in the charity shops. My only photography book (at least the only one I remember) is a "how to" by John Hedgcoe so probably of the same age as Heather's! |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Jun 14, 2023 13:14:08 GMT
Expanding on what I said, if you are unhappy with your current efforts, can you identify why? Other than, of course, they don't look like the types of pictures in garden photo contests etc. Once you have put your finger on what it is that is disappointing, you can work toward honing that aspect, working the scene, practicing etc. to improve it. No - that is the annoying thing. I usually can see what is wrong, which is why I used to chip in [too much perhaps] with edit suggestions on the AP Forum Appraisal board. I had a thought that maybe it is because I wear photochromic glasses and I'm not seeing the 'same' thing here at the computer editing in subdued light when my glasses are clear compared to when I'm taking the pictures when the lenses are at their darkest. Not that my memory for "as it was" is very good compared to some others. When "on landscape" magazine started it had recordings of very long discussions between Joe Cornish and Tim Parkin as they prepared landscapes for printing. They seemed to be able to spot where colours didn't match the memory of the scene and were making gentle efforts to correct to something they had recall of. I can't do that. I know this picture is "wrong" - what I see sitting on the bench near the pond is some delicate yellow flowers between me and the water. I think maybe I need to follow Kate's advice and get closer, low down, use a wider angle lens to reduce the compression in the scene - and find my plain specs and resource a polarising filter.  DSCF3374.jpg by Pete, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Post by Kath on Jun 14, 2023 13:25:28 GMT
I can't remember what I saw when I took the photograph either (no visuals for a start) so I don't try. I focus on creating an image I like and if it's something or nothing like the original scene doesn't particularly bother me. It's not like I"m shooting for a natural history magazine.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterba on Jun 14, 2023 13:26:51 GMT
I know this picture is "wrong" - what I see sitting on the bench near the pond is some delicate yellow flowers between me and the water. DSCF3374.jpg by Pete, on Flickr
I'm intrigued, Pete. Are you saying that the delicate yellow flowers aren't appearing delicate enough - or am I on the wrong track?
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Jun 14, 2023 13:27:03 GMT
I'n not seeing anything wrong with the images you've shared here but I think Zou is spot on. They are not the kind of images that win 'Garden Photography Awards' and you need to think about whether that's your aim in taking these shots or not before appraising them for yourself. Of the three images you've shared here I like the third one best of all. I think because it's a portrait shot not a landscape one. I shoot a lot of portrait-oriented shots in gardens because I think it's easier to hone in on an aspect that you find appealing. Our field of view is restricted so we're not trying to cram in the whole thing and the composition is necessarily tighter. So that mgiht be tip one. Also you've found a good spot that lets the contrast between bright and shady areas lead your eye. We are drawn to brighter areas of an image. If the whole image is bright we end up not really sure where to look. So maybe spend more time looking at what is happenign with the play of light and shade in front of you. And if it is all bright, is there an obvious focal point to concentrate on instead? Or a sneaky way of framing a thing? Thank you Kath, that is very encouraging - and as I said before to Zou I'm not chasing a particular look - all I know from the [few] articles I've read on Garden Photography in AP is that they seem awfully keen on contra-jour (as Kate points out) and on taking pictures at impossible times of the day. I will try to follow your advice and think a bit harder. The light/shade is quite a struggle to balance out and I've been trying to keep more contrast in the pics than I would historically. I take your point that the light areas risk taking too much attention and that is a trap when framing the picture. Thank you - good advice. |
|
|
|
Post by zou on Jun 14, 2023 13:28:35 GMT
Expanding on what I said, if you are unhappy with your current efforts, can you identify why? Other than, of course, they don't look like the types of pictures in garden photo contests etc. Once you have put your finger on what it is that is disappointing, you can work toward honing that aspect, working the scene, practicing etc. to improve it. No - that is the annoying thing. I usually can see what is wrong, which is why I used to chip in [too much perhaps] with edit suggestions on the AP Forum Appraisal board. I had a thought that maybe it is because I wear photochromic glasses and I'm not seeing the 'same' thing here at the computer editing in subdued light when my glasses are clear compared to when I'm taking the pictures when the lenses are at their darkest. Not that my memory for "as it was" is very good compared to some others. When "on landscape" magazine started it had recordings of very long discussions between Joe Cornish and Tim Parkin as they prepared landscapes for printing. They seemed to be able to spot where colours didn't match the memory of the scene and were making gentle efforts to correct to something they had recall of. I can't do that. I know this picture is "wrong" - what I see sitting on the bench near the pond is some delicate yellow flowers between me and the water. I think maybe I need to follow Kate's advice and get closer, low down, use a wider angle lens to reduce the compression in the scene - and find my plain specs and resource a polarising filter. DSCF3374.jpg by Pete, on Flickr If you are wanting to highlight "delicate" I'd start with lowering the contrast and saturation. Are you applying a colour preset (e.g. 'vivid'/'natural'/'landscape' etc.)? |
|
|
|
Post by peterba on Jun 14, 2023 13:31:58 GMT
I can't remember what I saw when I took the photograph either (no visuals for a start) so I don't try. I focus on creating an image I like and if it's something or nothing like the original scene doesn't particularly bother me. It's not like I"m shooting for a natural history magazine.
I have to say that this is the approach that I tend to take, Kath. A year or two ago, I undertook to take some shots as a favour ( i.e. unpaid), and I had to try very hard to restrain my inclination to 'work' the images into something that suited me, rather than the following the recipient's requirement. |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Jun 14, 2023 13:35:57 GMT
I know you don't always want to be carrying big lenses but a 70-200 etc. is really handy for subject isolation. Yes, lately (unless after birds) I've been using the light weight stuff - an X100V (fixed lens 35 mm equivalent) and my X-E2 with a 16-80 lens on it. (24-120 mm equivalent) - because it is easy to carry around. I'll brush the dust of my 70-200 - I can't remember the last time it was used - weighs a tonne! - and take my Canon next time out. I have a Fuji 55-200 (80 - 300 equivalent) which might work too. It doesn't get much use since I bought the longer lenses. |
|
|
|
Post by peterba on Jun 14, 2023 13:39:09 GMT
If you are wanting to highlight "delicate" I'd start with lowering the contrast and saturation. That was exactly the direction that I was thinking. A 'quick-and-dirty' tweak (peterob , I hope you don't object):
|
|
|
|
Post by zou on Jun 14, 2023 13:40:13 GMT
I know you don't always want to be carrying big lenses but a 70-200 etc. is really handy for subject isolation. Yes, lately (unless after birds) I've been using the light weight stuff - an X100V (fixed lens 35 mm equivalent) and my X-E2 with a 16-80 lens on it. (24-120 mm equivalent) - because it is easy to carry around. I'll brush the dust of my 70-200 - I can't remember the last time it was used - weighs a tonne! - and take my Canon next time out. I have a Fuji 55-200 (80 - 300 equivalent) which might work too. It doesn't get much use since I bought the longer lenses. Take the Fuji and 55-200, if it is lighter you're more likely to use it. As an exercise you could consider taking just that, no X100, no wide/standard zoom. |
|
|
|
Post by kate on Jun 14, 2023 13:41:16 GMT
I can delete this if you want but when I had ponds in my field I often went down to them to take shots. This was at the edge of one of them. I only post it to show a closer lower viewpoint.  Nature's garden by the pond by Kate Ferris, on Flickr This was way back in my Nikon D50 days with a 60mm fixed lens, 1/400th, f6.3 about 1.30pm.That's pond water behind. |
|
|
|
Post by peterba on Jun 14, 2023 13:43:09 GMT
I know you don't always want to be carrying big lenses but a 70-200 etc. is really handy for subject isolation.
A lens that size can go a long way towards social isolation, too.  |
|
