Nature Photography Technique Discussion: Portrayal of Flowers

[Joshua Szulecki]

Since I know many of us are into wildflowers AND photography, here is a question for you folks...

Do you prefer a photograph that shows a flower with the surrounding location visible, heavily blurred, completely blacked out, or white?

Example visible: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7372030 (bad example)
Example Blurred: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5792044
Example blacked out: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7377129
Example whited out: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3899260

Discuss

[Joshua Szulecki]

My personal sentiments are as follows...

Background visible: If technically possible based on availible DOF, having the background visible only producing a pleasing image if there is something of interest in the background, like mountains, or something that places the flowers in context, like a forest area that creates a mood. Basically, should only be done where asthetically pleasing, not just because you weren't paying attention.

Blurred background: Preferable whenever background is useless, AND blurring won't be distracting.

Blacked background: Suitable for documenting species charateristics, and dealing with distracting blur, otherwise should be avoided. Should be done with flash or background material, NOT PS.

White background: NEVER except for documenting species charateristics on species that doesn't show on black. Almost always hideous.

[Rob]

I prefer a blurred background if I am highlighting an individual flower or plant, but it can often be difficult to get a pleasing affect ( bokeh, I believe is the technical term) sometimes, without having a "dizzying effect" to the eye. If uncertain about the depth of field, I would prefer to have a black background. My Nikon D80 actually has a D.O.F. preview function, but I find it to not be all that helpful.

If I am trying to convey the large or mass quantities of flora, I want as much background as possible (as in some of Jay's pitcher plant photo's or Cahaba Lily photo's)

NEVER White.

[Joshua Szulecki]

Rob,

The DOF preview button isn't all that helpful because it works in the other direction. To provide a bright viewfinder, the lens is set to the widest aperture the lens can provide. When a picture is taken, the aperture is moved to the set aperture for the shot, then returns back to the widest setting. This means that for wide-aperture photography, where one is TRYING to blur the background, the DOF preview is really just showing you ALMOST or EXACTLY the same thing as your viewing aperture. Having a faster (lower)  max aperture number, like f/2.8 is better than f/4, will aid in more successfull blurring, but sometimes there isn't anything you can do about a really distracting element. I had one shot I really like of the C. acaule destroyed because there was something shiny that basically exploded at f/2.8.

[Joshua Szulecki]

I should clarify my statements.

I prefer blur for individual or small flower collections. I also prefer blur for where the background is uninteresting. I prefer a clear background where there is something interesting, or to show the context of the flower among a LARGE group of flowers, or a specific spot that compliments or shows off the flower, like ferns.

[Rob]

Josh,
Thanks for the DOF info.

I know what you mean about one element in a shot ruining the whole thing. When I was out at Little River Canyon Falls a couple of weeks ago, I trekked to the canyon floor to the bottom of the falls, not an easy task, and I photographed the falls. When I returned home to view the fruits of my labors I was disappointed to find the only respectable shot of the falls was ruined because of a single speck of mist from the falls. It was in the middle of the filter apparently, and somehow I missed it. Huge blur right in the center of an otherwise perfect shot.