I took this picture a week ago during a visit to the botanical garden of Hamburg (Germany). The picture was taken in the tropical glasshouse (could anyone please give the correct term, please :-) The weird perspective was forced on me by the thick undergrowth surrounding this flower. What do you think of it?
Nikon F4, Nikkor AF-D 80-200mmm f/2.8, 1/60sec@f2.8, handheld, Fujichrome Velvia 50

-- Philipp Leibfried (phil@provi.de), July 27, 1998

Answers

I like the colours and depth of field. The highlights on the flower seem burnt out (could be scanner/monitor, of course). I don't like the way the flower leads the eye out of the the frame. I'd try to rearrange the composition to keep the viewer's eye inside the picture.

-- Steve Leroux (steve@bigadventures.com), July 27, 1998.

I agree with the leading-the-eye-out-of-the-page comment, but I have to say that I prefer this shot to any of the shots of (very similarly-shaped) of red hibiscus I took recently. The wind was nonstop, so they're all blurry. I imagine that you didn't have that problem in a greenhouse, as the picture is very nice and sharp. The way I found worked to compose for them was to have a few leaves and the flower on the left/right corners, with the protruding center stalk leading up to the middle of the frame. I love how the back light gives halos to the whatever-you-call-it...(pistil?), and tried to feature that effect.

-- Jeremy Tavan (mithril@ict.org), July 28, 1998.

I think this is a very nice photo. I have two comments. Diffuse the light. That way the you could have reduced the contrast and toned down some of the bright areas especially the flowers. Also, something about the composition doesn't do it for me. The flow makes my eye move off the shot to the right. There seem to be two halves to the photo, the right with a flower, the left with dead space.

-- brad mills (dbradmills@aol.com), July 28, 1998.

Brad, I agree composition isn't that good, mainly because the viewer's eye is led out of the frame. However, if there is a division in this pic, it's along the diagonal bud-flower stalk-pistil, not vertical left/right, IMO. That doesn't make it any better, though :-)

However, there's one thing in general that really starts to annoy me in image critiques (not only on this forum, not only by you, and, most important, not only when it comes to my own pictures): The "burnt out highlights" or "no details in the whites" criticism. Why the heck would I want to diffuse the lights in this shot (and some others). Film has contrast limitations, and as long as the burnt out areas are small, I really couldn't care less about them. The important point is that a photograph look natural (in most cases, at least). And when we're standing in the shade watching a sunny area, we see "burnt out" highlights too. I have another shot of this same subject where I used the spot meter on the petals, it's darker and there's no "burnt out" highlights to be seen, but the photograph looks a little subdued, less joyous, and less natural. What do others think about this (in general)?

-- Philipp Leibfried (phil@provi.de), July 29, 1998.

Philipp,

I am sorry that you are annoyed by my critism. If you are happy with the results of this, good for you. (then why did you post the photo?)

A commonly accepted technique in close-up photography is to use a diffuser to even out the highlights. My suggestion can be used by others. A diffuser is used to compensate for the fact that film has contrast limitations. Look at published photos of flower close-ups, you will see very few that are taken in obvious direct sunlight.

I was not suggesting that you meter on the highlights. I was suggesting that this photo would be improved in different light. There are a couple of ways to do this. Go back on an overcast day, or diffus the light yourself.

Good shooting.

-- brad mills (dbradmills@aol.com), July 29, 1998.

Brad,

I wasn't annoyed by your criticism in particular; that's why I said not only on this forum etc. etc. above. My intention was not to "get it back to you", but to start a debate on whether high-contrast is really that bad. IMO, it's not; I've always enjoyed the way flowers seem to glow when slides as this one are projected. But I'm gonna give the "diffusion method" a try after what you said.

Regards and thanks for your reply.

P.S. Even though this is a critique forum, I still like to "defend" my pics or certain aspects of them :-)

-- Philipp Leibfried (phil@provi.de), July 29, 1998.

As far as the nomenclature inquiry, how 'bout "botanical conservatory"?

-- Tom Williams (image.araya@mailcity.com), September 06, 1998.

I like the subject and the lighting. I wish there was some more of that delicate pink in the really white areas.

-- Larry Korhnak (lvk@gnv.ifas.ufl.edi), November 06, 1998.