Portrait of a stone

[Seb]

Hi All,

I have been trying to get a decent pic of this stone since 1999! Once in a while, I return to this place and try my luck again.

This stone is part of the Meditation Garden of the VanDusen botanical garden in Vancouver. The stone is quite dark and under a thick canopy of fir trees. There are not too many camera positions which do not make the stone merge with the trees around .... or the trees merging with each others.

So there it is. After 5 years of shooting it, this is the best results I got so far (pathetic isn't it?).

Fuji Veliva 100F (top one) and 50 (bottom one). Nikon 24-85mm G-ED F16 (top one) and Nikon 70-300mm F5.6 (bottom one). Beside a UV filter, no other filters were used (this is rare for me!). I used a bit of fill flash in the top shot.

Comments, suggestions, feedbacks ... always welcome!

Cheers,

Steph.

Steph,

This looks like an interesting garden that I unfortunatelly haven't visited.

I truly enjoy your composition in the first picture. There is nothing pathetic about it! The trees add a great dynamic even if they aren't the main subject. The stones are properly exposed but the background seems overly bright to me with a washed out sky (ok, I am not in a position that allows me to criticise this lol...). Taken as it is, I would not hesitate to describe it as a good photograph. If you could reshot the exact same frame at a different time of the day so the background is darker or if you manage to tone down the background of this picture you would probably make it a great picture.

About the second one, I like how you captured textures and the colors are nice but the whole picture seems a bit overexposed and the composition feels weaker to me (in direct comparision with the first one).

regards

Seb

[Steph_B]

Steph,

This looks like an interesting garden that I unfortunatelly haven't visited.

Too bad! You really missed something. The VanDusen garden is one of my favorite hang out place. It's cheap and not too artificial. You can find great subjects and tons of different colors/tones/shades/shapes/textures to play with. It beats the Queen Elizabeth park anytime as far as I am concerned.

Taken as it is, I would not hesitate to describe it as a good photograph. If you could reshot the exact same frame at a different time of the day so the background is darker or if you manage to tone down the background of this picture you would probably make it a great picture.

Yeah, I agree. I tried that many times, but somehow it is always pretty dark below the trees. Even during really low light skies (and we have plenty of that here!), the difference in f-stop between the ambient light below the trees and outside is quite above 8.

An idea which I used here is to combine two exposures to get more dynamic range in order to tone down the BG. It actually worked quite well, as I basically managed to get another 1 f-stop out of my film. All the trials I did combining exposures with more than 1+1/2 f-stop difference were not satisfactory. The results looked kind of fake. So another 1 stop is prettily much all you can get from this trick.

Another idea which tried few months ago was to use the fill flash to bring up the FG. But the stone is almost black from this viewpoint. It didn't work either. I would need a much stronger flash unit.

About the second one, I like how you captured textures and the colors are nice but the whole picture seems a bit overexposed and the composition feels weaker to me (in direct comparision with the first one).

Absolutely. I wanted to get the stone texture out. I had to overexpose the shot for this, which resulted in a very light immediate FG (grass and moss). I took another shot with normal exposure which I combined with the overexposed shot to get a darker BG. But I do admit that it still gives you this 'overexposed' feeling.

As for the composition, I guess it all depends on the intent. Here I just wanted to get the stone. I agree with you that the first pic is more pleasing ot the eye, while the second is more of a portrait really. And what is more boring than a stone but a picture of a stone? .

Thanks for your comments! I might still give it another try before I go!

Cheers,

Steph.

[mattp]

Steph, would it be possible to get a shallower depth of field on the stone 'portrait' shot? In this particular shot the background isn't adding much, and I wondered if this might help separate it a bit.

I get the impression as well that this is an image that could really spring to life if the light conditions were just right (which is obviously a problem under a canopy of trees). The great thing about the stone is its texture, especially its contrast with the organic element of the moss. Under a fairly flat, even light it is hard to get that sense of texture across.

It looks like a lost member of the standing stones at Avebury, Wiltshire!

[Steph_B]

Steph, would it be possible to get a shallower depth of field on the stone 'portrait' shot? In this particular shot the background isn't adding much, and I wondered if this might help separate it a bit.

I get the impression as well that this is an image that could really spring to life if the light conditions were just right (which is obviously a problem under a canopy of trees). The great thing about the stone is its texture, especially its contrast with the organic element of the moss. Under a fairly flat, even light it is hard to get that sense of texture across.

Well, you're dead on the money ! I used the shallowest DOF my lens could give me at about 200-250mm (F5.6). I really look forward to the 80-200 F2.8. I have been drooling over this lens for awhile now. The prices just went down to $699. If not for my actual financial situation, I would have gotten it already. I was thinking of using a blur in PS, but I really do not like the artificiality of it.

Yes, the light was quite flat that day. But any stronger light would have blocked all the crevises and cracks of the stone. As you can see, I am still waiting for the perfect conditions!

Thanks for your input. I am looking forward to more of your shots!

CHeers,

Steph.