Please critique these shots

[dullard]

I'm trying to learn my new camera (my first non-point-and-shoot): Canon SL1 with EFS 55-250 mm and EFS 18-55 mm lenses.

Since no one I know personally will ever give a negative critique, what can I do better in these photos?
https://dullard.shutterfly.com/pictures

For some reason, I really didn't like the photos from the EFS 18-55 mm lens with flowers. The 55-250 lens worked so much better, although I had to stay far from the flowers. Most were shot in Aperture Priority mode (Av) to keep the F number small but some were in manual.

 

[Spoooon]

Hard to say what you should do better without knowing what you were setting out to do.

I think the photos look fine for the most part.

 

[dullard]

Hard to say what you should do better without knowing what you were setting out to do.

I think the photos look fine for the most part.

I guess the best answer would be to have photos of flowers that are worthy of looking at. #14 may be the exception, I was thinking more of a background for other purposes, maybe I shouldn't have uploaded that one.

Since I am just learning to take photos, I'm just wondering if there is any obvious rule of thumb that I destroyed. Or maybe some camera setting that is looks obviously wrong to people who actually know what they are doing.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

They look pretty good to me! Nothing obviously wrong there. One thing that you might try just to add a bit of drama is getting a couple of pieces of foamcore board (1 black, 1 white) from a hobby store and setting one of them behind the flower to get a pure white or pure black background.

 

[Syborg1211]

Some of these seem cropped/low resolution, but that might be a product of the website downscaling the images. Are you shooting with a macro lens? A macro lens and macro light might help.

 

[EOM]

Some of these seem cropped/low resolution, but that might be a product of the website downscaling the images. Are you shooting with a macro lens? A macro lens and macro light might help.

Yeah, they seemed very compressed, but possibly just the site doing it. The shots look fine to me in terms of composition and technical issues such as focus and exposure...

 

[Belegost]

I have the same lenses and body, and the compression artifacts aren't normal, those are either from the site, or post-processing.

OP you may want to try flickr or photobucket for hosting; they maintain higher resolution images.

I don't take many flower pics, but an example from my photobucket using the SL1 and 55-250 (apologies in advance for enormous image):

 

[dullard]

Some of these seem cropped/low resolution, but that might be a product of the website downscaling the images. Are you shooting with a macro lens? A macro lens and macro light might help.

I have the country's slowest internet connection (Time Warner $14.99/month plan). So I compressed them by 35% in both directions. Then that website recompressed them even further. Flickr required a text message to sign up (no reason for me to pay $0.25 to sign up so I stopped) and so I just did a quick search for other photo hosting sites.

These were (I think) all shot with the 55 - 250 EFS lens and then just standing far back from the flowers. One or two may have been with the 18 - 55 EFS lens, but I really liked the look less on those photos with the 18 - 55 lens.

I've been thinking about a macro lens for flowers, but a macro lens is quite an investment and I am just getting started with better cameras. What would you pick on the lower range of macro lenses for this type of shot?

 

[Spoooon]

If you're going to mess with flowers, just get a 50mm macro. Relatively affordable and perfectly suited for stuff that won't mind you getting close.

Nikon Nikkor Micro 55/3.5 (not for you, just what I used on this pic )

edit: Or a 40mm I guess http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-40mm-2-...F8&qid=1433536582&sr=8-2&keywords=nikon+macro

Though the Tokina 100mm is only $100 more.

 

[Z15CAM]

Looks like your playing with Fucus and Depth of Field - No idea what lens and hardware your using.

Your shots are descent. Just take into account the faster your lens is the shallower your depth of field is - So your focus has to be right on.

 

[EOM]

If you're going to mess with flowers, just get a 50mm macro. Relatively affordable and perfectly suited for stuff that won't mind you getting close.

Nikon Nikkor Micro 55/3.5 (not for you, just what I used on this pic )

edit: Or a 40mm I guess http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-40mm-2-...F8&qid=1433536582&sr=8-2&keywords=nikon+macro

Though the Tokina 100mm is only $100 more.

I found that with the 40mm I have to get too close to the subject in order to get the macro shots that a lot of the time I'd end up blocking the light for the angle I was trying to get. I'd suggest something a bit longer and/or a macro light ring. I have the 40mm and recently got the 105mm macro and it's loads better!

 

[Z15CAM]

Actually it's the human shot that will give you acclaim - Whether it's taken from one frame of an 8mm celliod Cam recorder, Cell Phone or a Pro Cam.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

You can get macro extension tubes pretty cheaply. They are simply "dumb" empty metal tubes that will work with any lens, including your 55-250. They basically create extra distance from the back of the lens to the sensor, which allows it to focus closer. I got a set from China several years ago on eBay for like $20. The better off-brand ones are like $100-$150 range, while the official Canon ones are a couple hundred.

 

[DigDog]

your photos are boring. honestly. boring. they look fine, but then again you are sitting in front of a flower, not much that can go wrong.

try something a bit harder, maybe some issues will become more apparent.

 

[blurredvision]

Honest critique, but be warned I'm not a professional.

- Colors are great. Not sure if they were edited in post or SOOC but they're pretty good.
- Your composition on some are not particularly interesting, however I say this not knowing what a good composition would be. Shot #1, the flower is just kind of hanging out in the bottom left, seems "off to me". Shot #4 would likely have been my favorite because of the interesting curve but there's a big dark empty spot on the left that draws my attention away. Same with shot #7, it feels like there's too much dark at the top, draws my eye away.

 

[blurredvision]

your photos are boring. honestly. boring. they look fine, but then again you are sitting in front of a flower, not much that can go wrong.

I would add to this that flowers are typically more interesting extremely up close (macro/micro) or wide with many of them in the frame (a field, greenhouse, whatever).

 

[dullard]

your photos are boring. honestly. boring. they look fine, but then again you are sitting in front of a flower, not much that can go wrong.

try something a bit harder, maybe some issues will become more apparent.

Thanks for the input. It didn't really provide any useful information though. How would you take tulip photos to be more interesting?

 

[dullard]

If you're going to mess with flowers, just get a 50mm macro. Relatively affordable and perfectly suited for stuff that won't mind you getting close.

Nikon Nikkor Micro 55/3.5 (not for you, just what I used on this pic )

edit: Or a 40mm I guess http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-40mm-2-...F8&qid=1433536582&sr=8-2&keywords=nikon+macro

Though the Tokina 100mm is only $100 more.

Since I'm new, and 40 mm to 100 mm are all over the board in sizes, do you have any examples of what 40 mm would do vs. 100 mm?

 

[dullard]

Your composition on some are not particularly interesting, however I say this not knowing what a good composition would be. Shot #1, the flower is just kind of hanging out in the bottom left, seems "off to me". Shot #4 would likely have been my favorite because of the interesting curve but there's a big dark empty spot on the left that draws my attention away. Same with shot #7, it feels like there's too much dark at the top, draws my eye away.

I didn't crop these. #4 drew me in for the opposite reason. I liked the missing flowers on the left. But I could certainly crop most of these to be better composed.

 

[Spoooon]

Since I'm new, and 40 mm to 100 mm are all over the board in sizes, do you have any examples of what 40 mm would do vs. 100 mm?

For the most part, it just changes to working distance. For my shot, I was probably 2 or 3 inches away from the flower. With a 100mm, I could have gotten the same shot from 1 foot away, for example. *numbers pulled out of ass

 

[DigDog]

Thanks for the input. It didn't really provide any useful information though. How would you take tulip photos to be more interesting?

you could have two fields instead of one

or try to express a simple idea

showcase something of particular interest

just get creative

 

[EOM]

Since I'm new, and 40 mm to 100 mm are all over the board in sizes, do you have any examples of what 40 mm would do vs. 100 mm?

I happen to have both.... well, a 40mm and a 105. Here's some quick examples I snapped 5 min ago:

First picture is with a 105mm Macro Lens. I was about a foot away.

Second Picture is the same shot(as close to the same perspective as i could get) with a 40mm lens. I was about 5" away from the subject.

Third picture is the 40mm lens from the same spot that i shot the 105mm in the first picture, just to show the difference in perspective from the two.