Pretty Face

© Stephen Shoff

Pretty Face

Uploaded: April 27, 2013

Description

f/16, 1/200 sec, ISO 400; EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro+Speedbooster

Photo taken on a Wildflower walk in the Marshall Gold Discovery State Historic Park, Coloma, CA. This is the site of John Marshal's discovery of gold at Sutter's Mill that started the California Gold Rush in 1849.

Exif: F Number: 16, Exposure Bias Value: 0.00, ExposureTime: 1/200 seconds, Flash: did not fire, compulsory flash mode, ISO: 400, White balance: Manual white balance, FocalLength: 70.00 mm, Model: NEX-7

Comments

Stephen Shoff April 27, 2013

I was on my own wildflower walk today. This was an American River Conservancy naturalist-led walk that was focused on botany of native wildflowers. I was along for the exercise and photo-ops.

Shooting note: Photo taken handheld with using a NEX-7 and a Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens attached via a Metabones Speedbooster adapter. This adapter is unique in that it allows the lens to be used at its rated focal length on on the NEX-7's APS-C sensor. In the process, it also increases the maximum aperture by 1 stop, from 2.8 to f2 in this case. This is primarily useful for wide-angle lenses.

The image is only cropped on the right to 4:5 aspect ratio from the sensor 4:6 proportions. The only sharpening is a little clarity in ACR. Slight hilite reduction in Shadow/Hilites to reduce some of the glare off the petals.
#1525873

Michael Kelly level-classic April 28, 2013

Beautiful Stephen! I really like the composition and it looks like you were spot on with F16 to get the correct DOF for this shot. Great BG, and I love the two closed blossoms as a back stop for the main subject flower. The shot has a wonderful sweep to it from the partial flower in the front left up and through the closed blossoms.

Nicely done as it looks like your main subject was in direct sun but the back lighting helped to keep the shot soft rather than harsh as I often get in direct sun shots especially with yellow or red.

Looks like the lens combination worked well. #10670519

Dale Hardin April 28, 2013

Excellent Stephen. Must agree with everything Mike said 'cause he don't lie. Much. :o)

All kidding aside, this is a well thought out and executed capture and is well done. Even so, I still think I would do just a bit more processing to get the most out of it.

As Mike mentioned, the main subject is in direct sun but the image as a whole is a bit flat. Give this a try to see if you like it. Duplicate and apply a 30% screen blend. Then apply a levels layer and move the mid-tone slider to the right to about o.60 to add a bit more contrast to the shadows.

Of course, since you are working with the original file, your settings might be just a tad different. #10670534

Stephen Shoff April 28, 2013

Thanks for the comments. The purpose of my primary post was to provide a demonstration of a new technology that I have become quite excited about. So it was intended to be a very nearly SOOC demonstration image with only the bare essentials of post-processing rather than finished product. I was also looking for composition comments before deciding to work on this further. It was, Mike, those two petals in the bottom left corner that that I thought took this image to the next level. Thanks for the affirmation.

I will refine this image, Dale. Thanks for the suggestions. #10670824

Stephen Shoff April 28, 2013

Dale's suggestions #10672290

Dale Hardin April 29, 2013

Stephen the edit seems to be going in the opposite direction of what I had in mind. It is darker instead of brighter. Remember my suggestions were based on the posted image, not the original. #10673664

Rita K. Connell level-classic April 29, 2013

I agree at this point I really like the original better. Its a great picture, for all the reason mention #10673729

Jeff E Jensen April 29, 2013

That sounds like a pretty intriguing gadget, Stephen. In suing it, did you find any drawbacks to it? #10674187

Stephen Shoff April 29, 2013

Well Dale, I followed your instructions to the letter. I duplicated it and applied a 30% screen blend. I then applied a levels layer but the mid-tone slider set to 0.60 made the background way too dark so I reduced it some, which I took to be your "your settings might just be...".

Since you didn't describe the changes you wanted to accomplish, just the process, I concluded that a darker background with a brighter primary element was your intent. If I were to go the opposite direction, I fail to see how a lighter background behind a bright foreground would have decreased the appearance of being "flat".

Jeff it is an interesting gadget. To the degree is has any drawbacks, it is focusing speed, which may be slowed down. But I'm having enough trouble managing focus with the camera itself that at the moment the difference can't be considered a determining factor. If you apply the common wisdom that macro shots need to be manually focused anyway, then the "focus peaking" feature of the camera should actually improve manual focus speed and accuracy, if I can ever "get the hang of it". #10674355

Dale Hardin April 29, 2013

Very strange Stephen. My intend indeed was to lighten the foreground and sunlit areas while darkening the shadows. I tried in on a screen shot and it did just that.

You brought up a good point. It is a good idea to state the intent and not just the procedure. I try to always do that, but failed to do so in this case. #10674366

Beth Spencer April 29, 2013

Gorgeous flowers. I really like the composition. You have great focus and a lot of detail shows in the petals.

Sounds like a very interesting gadget. #10674721

Peter W. Marks May 02, 2013

Now I need an explanation of what benefit your new gadget gives you. I know little about macro lenses but understand that on a cropped sensor the actual focal length of your lens ie 100mm will be effectively 150mm or so due to the 'crop factor'. Therefor to obtain an actual 100mm you would require a lens of approx. 65mm. Now here's my question- why not purchase a Canon 60mm 2.8 macro which unless I am completely not understanding might even be less expensive than the Speedbooster gadget.
Ah! perhaps I can answer my own question after further thought! You can use the Speedbooster on a number of your lenses not just the 100mm macro. Duh! Is that the rational Stephen? But just as an extra thought- is there any degradation of image through that extra glass? #10678948

Stephen Shoff May 03, 2013

You almost got it, Peter. I don't have to invest in a second set of lenses. I get the ability to put my "L" glass on the Sony, Exmor sensor, NEX camera. I didn't get the gadget so that I could use long or macro lenses. However, I've found that is an unexpected benefit. I could go on this wildflower walk with very low expectations for quality photography, carrying my small camera with its 18-200 kit lens, plus 1 additional quality lens. I can fit this kit into a waist pack. I got the gadget...

BECAUSE, the point you missed is that this isn't just a mount adapter, which would behave as you described. This gadget contains optics that allows my 100mmm lens to remain 100mm on the crop sensor camera, and in the process increased its "speed" by about 1 full f-stop.

Where this really comes becomes useful the ability to use my 17-40L "ultra" wide angle lens as a 17-40 on the crop-sensor NEX. Just a mount adapter would have made the 17-40 into a 25-60, within the same wide-angle range as my walk-around "Kit", 18-200 lens. It seems that on these mirrorless cameras, because they are so thin, it is very hard to build a truly wide-angle lens. Prices for quality, 3rd part lenses like Zeiss, for this camera are higher than "L" glass.

Image quality remains very good. If you read the pixel-peeper reviews there will always be some that find fault. There may be some corner degradation, but it hasn't been an issue to me yet. I wouldn't have gotten this picture if I'd had my standard lens mounted at the time. In the full-size image, the detail in the lace and brocade is incredible.
#10680340

Peter W. Marks May 03, 2013

Thank you Stephen. I actually understand that explanation!
When we fly back to the UK at the end of the month I am seriously debating whether, instead of lugging the Canon 50D with my 10-20mm Sigma, the Canon 50mm and the Canon 70-200L I just take my original digital Olympus Z3000 zoom. It only has 3mb but in all of 9 years of digital stuff I have never made a print greater than 14x11 and they look fine to me so might just settle for travelling light. It doesn't shoot RAW as far as I remember but I need hardly tell you I have a somewhat 'laissez faire' attitude to photography so we shall see. After paying $1500 each for our tickets plus extra for choosing our seats and any extra luggage the Olympus and its small bag becomes more attractive by the minute.
#10680405

Stephen Shoff May 03, 2013

You are absolutely right, Peter. Your camera only needs to satisfy your goals.

For me, anticipating a trip to London where my prime destinations were quality visits to Westminster Abbey and Kensington Palace, the January announcement of the Speedbooster was a godsend. My 5DMII would have worked maybe better, but the confined spaces and crowded conditions, and extensive "tube" and crowded sidewalk travel during rush hour made the NEX very attractive. Turned out, you can't take any photographs inside the Abbey, and we skipped Kensington Palace and ended up in Windsor instead. 5DMII would have been fine.

I have also learned that for me, in crowded conditions or for more casual family photography, I simply will not pull out even my 50D with its loud shutter with a less conspicuous Tamron 24-75 lens. I will bypass the photo-op altogether. I took a lot more of this kind of picture on this trip. #10680473


To discuss, first log in or sign up (buttons are at top center of page).

Get Constructive Critiques

Sign up for an interactive online photography course to get critiques on your photos.


 

Did You Know?

Discussions by Category: You can view photo discussions on various themes in the Community > Photo Discussions section of the site.

BetterPhoto Websites: If you see an orange website link directly under the photographer's name, it's totally okay. It's not spam. The reason: BetterPhoto is the one that offers these personal photography websites. We are supporting our clients with those links.

Unavailable EXIF: If there is no other information but 'Unavailable' in the EXIF (meaning no EXIF data exists with the photo), the 'Unavailable' blurb is not displayed. If there is any info, it shows. Many photos have the EXIF stripped out when people modify the image and resave it, before uploading.


 

The following truth is one of the core philosophies of BetterPhoto:

I hear, I forget.
I see, I remember.
I do, I understand.

You learn by doing. Take your next online photography class.


Copyright for this photo belongs solely to Stephen Shoff.
Images may not be copied, downloaded, or used in any way without the expressed, written permission of the photographer.
Log in to follow or message this photographer or report this photo.