Mushrooms

[pez31]

Taken the other morning, I was going after textures and contrast.

Regards,

Phil

[Ronnoco]

You would be better going for side lighting, perhaps a reflector, and poisonous mushrooms(because of their bright colours) and using colour film or colour digital. Even for texture alone, this shot does not have the proper focus, lighting or contrast.

Ronnoco

[picturetaker1239]

yeah. i agree. if you want texture try getting closer. to me it just looks like u were going for a picture of a mushroom. also the focus isnt right. try using a higher aperture by a couple f stops. or use manual focus beause your auto focus is focussed on the leaf in front of the mushrooms.

[pez31]

You would be better going for side lighting, perhaps a reflector, and poisonous mushrooms(because of their bright colours) and using colour film or colour digital. Even for texture alone, this shot does not have the proper focus, lighting or contrast.

Ronnoco

Ronnoco,

Thanks for your input. Using a reflector would be fine if you wanted to add light to a subject however the mushrooms do not need additional light added to them. I should have expressed clearer my idea of contrast. It would be better expressed as good tonal range; covering at least 6 zonal ranges. Again thanks for your thoughts.

Phil

[pez31]

yeah. i agree. if you want texture try getting closer. to me it just looks like u were going for a picture of a mushroom. also the focus isnt right. try using a higher aperture by a couple f stops. or use manual focus beause your auto focus is focussed on the leaf in front of the mushrooms.

Picturetaker,

I could have moved in a little closer. While I was interested in the textures of the mushrooms I was trying to get a picture of the mushrooms. There are times when what you are trying for just falls short. Just so you know this was shot at f/11 and I focused manually one third of the way into the frame. On the print each mushroom is sharp and only the background is out of focus. Thanks for your thoughts.

Phil

[yogestee]

B/W works well here Phil...Great tonal range and textures..

Jurgen

[yogestee]

You would be better going for side lighting, perhaps a reflector, and poisonous mushrooms(because of their bright colours) and using colour film or colour digital. Even for texture alone, this shot does not have the proper focus, lighting or contrast.

Ronnoco

It might be a good idea the read the poster's remarks before critiqing Ronnoco..

Jurgen

[readingr]

Phil

This looks like a lovely photo and you've managed to get what you went after with the photo. I would love to see this in a big print.

Phil you'll need to ignore Ronnoco - he seems to be the only one on here who can take a perfect photo; while the rest of us are still learning :-).

Roger

[Ronnoco]

It might be a good idea the read the poster's remarks before critiqing Ronnoco..

Jurgen

I did. Textures, require excellent focus and off axis lighting, or weren't you aware of that?

Paul

[Ronnoco]

Phil

This looks like a lovely photo and you've managed to get what you went after with the photo. I would love to see this in a big print.

Phil you'll need to ignore Ronnoco - he seems to be the only one on here who can take a perfect photo; while the rest of us are still learning :-).

Roger

Phil, it depends on what level of standards you want to set for yourself, even if you cannot always reach those standards.

If you want to be satisfied with lower standards and a lower level of self-satisfaction and success, then by all means listen to Roger.

If not, consider my critique. Your choice!

Ronnoco

[pez31]

B/W works well here Phil...Great tonal range and textures..

Jurgen

Jurgen,

Thanks for the comments. Black and white is what I am drawn to and I am still working on my control over the digital medium.

Phil

[pez31]

Phil

This looks like a lovely photo and you've managed to get what you went after with the photo. I would love to see this in a big print.

Phil you'll need to ignore Ronnoco - he seems to be the only one on here who can take a perfect photo; while the rest of us are still learning :-).

Roger

Roger,

Thanks for the encouragement.

[pez31]

Phil, it depends on what level of standards you want to set for yourself, even if you cannot always reach those standards.

If you want to be satisfied with lower standards and a lower level of self-satisfaction and success, then by all means listen to Roger.

If not, consider my critique. Your choice!

Ronnoco

Ronnoco,

What makes a critique forum successful is hearing all points of views, even if they are unfavorable. We need to be cautious of making personal preference the focus of a negative critique, or making guidelines for photography hardened rules that cannot bend. I do think everyone using this forum is striving for higher success in quality photographs. We may not want to sell prints or start our own studios but we all want to be better. You can always share your thoughts just realize that not everyone will agree.

Regards,

Phil

[Overbeyond]

While the lighting may not be perfect it definitely is not at all bad. I find it to be adequate.
However the most interesting thing is the pattern and shape and form of the layout of the mushrooms. Does anybody see the form of a dead animal, maybe a fox?
So Phil, I think you have come up with an excellent and unusual photograph.
Tom

[Canuck935]

Hmm... Jack O' Lantern mushrooms?

[yogestee]

I did. Textures, require excellent focus and off axis lighting, or weren't you aware of that?

Paul

No Ronnoco,,I'm just a Philistine :mad2:

Jurgen

[molaselake]

Maybe my monitor isn't right, or maybe my eyes arent, but I think the lighting and tonal range are both perfect. Any brighter and it would have been too contrasty. Any darker and it wouldn't have had enough contrast. If I'd do anything to the photograph, it would be to take out the leaf and grass at the bottom, because they distract me from the mushrooms.

[Ronnoco]

Maybe my monitor isn't right, or maybe my eyes arent, but I think the lighting and tonal range are both perfect. Any brighter and it would have been too contrasty. Any darker and it wouldn't have had enough contrast. If I'd do anything to the photograph, it would be to take out the leaf and grass at the bottom, because they distract me from the mushrooms.

My CRT is more accurate than my LCDs in terms of colour and tone. Two of the mushrooms have dark edges which suggests heavy post processing for contrast and focus. Part of the central mushroom is indeed slightly over-exposed and losing some detail and texture as a result. Depth of field makes focus slightly soft in some of the areas as well, reducing texture. Tone refers to the number of colours in the grey scale that can be seen in the photo and considering your comment on contrast, you have to realize that there are much fewer tones and a limited tonal range in a contrasty photo.
The lighting is also direct and that does not lend itself to texture either.

Ronnoco

[pez31]

While the lighting may not be perfect it definitely is not at all bad. I find it to be adequate.
However the most interesting thing is the pattern and shape and form of the layout of the mushrooms. Does anybody see the form of a dead animal, maybe a fox?
So Phil, I think you have come up with an excellent and unusual photograph.
Tom

Thanks Tom,

It is always interesting to see how others perceive what the photographer saw.

Regards,

Phil

[pez31]

Maybe my monitor isn't right, or maybe my eyes arent, but I think the lighting and tonal range are both perfect. Any brighter and it would have been too contrasty. Any darker and it wouldn't have had enough contrast. If I'd do anything to the photograph, it would be to take out the leaf and grass at the bottom, because they distract me from the mushrooms.

Apparently our monitors must be calibrated the same. This is the struggle presenting photographs in this format; monitors rendering the image differently. I appreciate your suggestion and might repost with that crop.

Regards,

Phil

[pez31]

My CRT is more accurate than my LCDs in terms of colour and tone. Two of the mushrooms have dark edges which suggests heavy post processing for contrast and focus. Part of the central mushroom is indeed slightly over-exposed and losing some detail and texture as a result. Depth of field makes focus slightly soft in some of the areas as well, reducing texture. Tone refers to the number of colours in the grey scale that can be seen in the photo and considering your comment on contrast, you have to realize that there are much fewer tones and a limited tonal range in a contrasty photo.
The lighting is also direct and that does not lend itself to texture either.

Ronnoco

Ronnoco,

The only post processing done was to burn in the corners of the print. If that is heavy post processing than I guess I’m at fault; the edges of those mushrooms were that dark. However if I manipulated the image more would that be bad? Ansel Adams’ prints are amazing because he did a lot of post processing in the darkroom and not because his exposures were perfect. I am by no means comparing my work to his.

Yes the depth of field has made the background soft and furthest mushroom a tad soft, (the mushroom being soft is noticed when enlarged 100%; an 8X10 print looks fine) but main of the image is very sharp.

You may disagree with molaselake but in reading her comment she thought the image, on her monitor, had good contrast not too much contrast. As for the lighting it was completely overcast so it would be more of diffused and not direct.

Regards,

Phil

[Ronnoco]

No Ronnoco,,I'm just a Philistine :mad2:

Jurgen

Well, of course! That explains it!

Ronnoco

[molaselake]

My CRT is more accurate than my LCDs in terms of colour and tone. Two of the mushrooms have dark edges which suggests heavy post processing for contrast and focus. Part of the central mushroom is indeed slightly over-exposed and losing some detail and texture as a result. Depth of field makes focus slightly soft in some of the areas as well, reducing texture. Tone refers to the number of colours in the grey scale that can be seen in the photo and considering your comment on contrast, you have to realize that there are much fewer tones and a limited tonal range in a contrasty photo.
The lighting is also direct and that does not lend itself to texture either.

Ronnoco

I'm very familiar with tonal range. I had to create gradients on the computer and with cut paper throughout art school. I also know my fair share about contrast because I've had to deal with enormous amounts of it in my own photos when experimenting with negative and print development. I agree with the comment that this is not the best representation of texture. Texture would probably have been better acheived with a shot off to an angle and close up so as to see all the ridges of the mushroom in extreme focus. However, I would say it's a solid representation of organic movement and tonal range (on my computer).

[readingr]

Does anybody see the form of a dead animal, maybe a fox?

Tom

Yes I saw that the first time but then I always see strange things in photos. I thought a dog but now that you state fox, all I can see is fox.

Roger

PS. To me its still a good solid photo given the conditions and the intentions.