Image Stacking Wild Flowers

[Lancashire Lad]

Last week, we had a few days when the weather was both warm and relatively windless, and I decided to try my hand at image stacking with wild flowers.

I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to capture several series of natural light shots, most of which, upon subsequent computer viewing, had to be binned due to slight subject movement between shots of the intended series.

The subject plants were held in position using my home made “pegs on sticks” clamps. The black background is just my jacket, which was placed on the ground about a metre behind the subject plants. (My thinking on this was to eliminate stacking disruptions by possible movement of plants in the background of the field of view, but I would hope to leave an entirely out of focus natural background on any future attempts).

The evening lighting was strongly directional from right hand side, with light thrown back from a silver reflector on left hand side.

At the time, I thought it might provide a means of obtaining interesting and possibly unusual take on wild flower “portraits”.

However, although they were lit by natural daylight, the more I look at these images now, I think that they might just come across as badly taken "studio" flash photos, and I’m not sure if the technique is worth pursuing.



I’d value any thoughts on the images, or suggestions that might be worth trying to improve the results of any future attempts.

Regards,
Mike.

[Stinky Bob]

Personally Mike I think they are stunning images and as someone who has dabbled with image stacking (insects) and who hasn't yet got an image to keep I think you have done really well.

PS How many images did you stack.

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by Stinky Bob

PS How many images did you stack.

4, 6 and 7 - it's in the image information!

Jim

[Stinky Bob]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

4, 6 and 7 - it's in the image information!

Jim

Thanks Jim

[acherontia]

They're very sharp and detailed but I see what you mean about them looking as though flash has been used.
Is there any reason why you can't bring them inside and use diffused lighting/light tent to do this technique? I think perhaps something like f5.6 or a little less may give a softer but more detailed effect and in a more controlled situation you could go for more stacks and have more choice of background. I've noticed that when I shoot at a higher f number the effect can seem a little harsh looking and more 'unreal' than at a wider aperture.
Only inIMHO - you may object to indoor photography or enjoy the challenge? And I'm sure you'd be responsible as regards different specimins. If you want any more pink campion I've a garden full of hundreds in flower at the mo!

Nice to experiment though. Always keep an open mind re different approaches, is my motto. At least flowers don't hop off or fly off!

Acher

[Hobjob]

I like them too - but I think it is the black background that gives them the studio look.

I wonder what they would be like with a natural background, which would be out of focus anyway?

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by Hobjob

I like them too - but I think it is the black background that gives them the studio look.

I wonder what they would be like with a natural background, which would be out of focus anyway?

I like the black background. I have outdoor shots with black backgrounds that had no coat to help them along and weren't taken in the studio. In this case the black emphasises the subject matter very nicely and there's nowt wrong with studio photography either - especially if you want to up the ante on detail.

I'll wager that if you chose some long dry grass background, nicely out of focus and had some subtle, diffused daylight bulb lighting this would look very natural. Studio does not necessarily mean bad. There's a lot of wild life photographers, especially of flowers, that take advantage of the studio - only you just don't know because they don't say!!! It's just as valid to reflect the beauty of nature by a means that ensures a little more control to get a good end result.
Ultimately, it's all about getting the message across that nature is wonderful, threatened or what ever angle you want to portray in order to impress this, visually, on others.

Saying that studio is undesirable (I think that comes across) is like saying that you shouldn't post process images as it's not what's 'real'.

Acher

[Lancashire Lad]

Thanks for the constructive comments everyone.

Acher - you are correct. It was really a combination of the challenge, and trying to obtain a "natural" look about the finished image. I absolutely agree that there's nothing wrong with studio shots, (especially for this type of treatment), but I just wanted to see if I could get some decent results "in the field".

I've had a few more attempts today (images below), the results of which I'm quite pleased with. I limited the stacks to no more than four separate images in each case.
Photo info available on each image when viewed. (Best at largest size).



I've still got a few stacks to sort out, and might upload them as well if they turn out ok.

Regards,
Mike.

[acherontia]

Nice! I like the hawkbit the best - it's very dramatic and the stacking has worked well. The cranesbill is a great composition but the hairs still look a little 'harsh' - but tons better. The only thing I'm not sure of on the campion is the composition - perhaps a little less on the sides and a bit more 'weight' at the bottom rather than the top? Only IMHO Lovely images though.

I've just spent 5 hours putting together another 100+ 'joiner' - all this takes a bit of patience, doesn't it? Challenging though

Acher

[Hobjob]

You wrote

"However, although they were lit by natural daylight, the more I look at these images now, I think that they might just come across as badly taken "studio" flash photos, and I’m not sure if the technique is worth pursuing."

I neither said I did or didn't like the studio effect you mentioned, just wondered if that studio feeling was caused, at least in part, by the black background. You are putting words into my mouth

BTW, I much prefer your second lot with the green background, as to me it looks more natural.

Originally Posted by acherontia

I like the black background. I have outdoor shots with black backgrounds that had no coat to help them along and weren't taken in the studio. In this case the black emphasises the subject matter very nicely and there's nowt wrong with studio photography either - especially if you want to up the ante on detail.

I'll wager that if you chose some long dry grass background, nicely out of focus and had some subtle, diffused daylight bulb lighting this would look very natural. Studio does not necessarily mean bad. There's a lot of wild life photographers, especially of flowers, that take advantage of the studio - only you just don't know because they don't say!!! It's just as valid to reflect the beauty of nature by a means that ensures a little more control to get a good end result.
Ultimately, it's all about getting the message across that nature is wonderful, threatened or what ever angle you want to portray in order to impress this, visually, on others.

Saying that studio is undesirable (I think that comes across) is like saying that you shouldn't post process images as it's not what's 'real'.

Acher