C&C Rembrandt Roses?

[SVQuant]

We have a rose bush in our backyard which currently has a bunch of blooms that are lit up by the narrow beam from evening sun through a gap between a tree and the roofline. The lighting gives the these flowers have the look of a Rembrandt painting. The dark background comes from the fact that there is nothing behind these blooms for about 12 feet and they are the edge of the canopy of a couple of trees.

I noticed this on Friday evening and shot this image with my E-M10 and O25/1.8 which happened to be handy. A-mode f/3.2, ISO160, 1/4000s, -1eV.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I was initially very thrilled with the Rembrandt effect I had managed to achieve, but slowly doubts began to creep in. In particular, I was dissatisfied with the choice of focal length (too short) and also the choice of aperture (too wide). So I decided to take another whack at it this evening. The blooms have opened more in the two days since the last image and I think that I did a much better job capturing the light this time. Here are the two keepers from today, both with the E-M1 and 12-60SWD @ 60mm.

1. ISO 200, f/5, 1/3200s, -1eV

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

2. ISO 200, f/8, 1/1000s, -1eV

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

All images are processed in ACDsee with some contrast enhancement and then sharpened in Nik with default settings.

Seeking comments and criticism, In particular,

1. Did I succeed in capturing the look I saw, as in, do others see it as such?
2. Did I succeed in improving my initial image?
3. Given how short lived this effect is, how could I have gotten it right the first time? This is really important to me as a lot of times I will not be able to go back and capture the moment.

And anything else that strikes people.

 

[SVQuant]

Just wanted to update this thread since the tree which provided the deep shadow which made the shot possible dropped a large branch two nights ago and the lighting no longer exists for achieving this in camera. I had been thinking of the short life of the flowers and the changing angle of the sun. Never expected that the tree and the deep shadow would the first thing to change!

The tree and branch

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

And the surviving roses (same settings, camera direction and time of day as the second set of shots in the previous post), but framed differently to show the tree trunk.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[TNcasual]

1. Yes, you succeeded.
2. Yes, you improved the shot. The second one is outstanding.
3. Maybe you could have reviewed the images as soon as you took them and made the necessary adjustments on the first day.

I think the only thing I would try would be to add some vignette to tone down the stems and what little bokeh balls are still in the background.

They are beautiful roses. Sorry to hear about the limb.

 

[SVQuant]

1. Yes, you succeeded.
2. Yes, you improved the shot. The second one is outstanding.
3. Maybe you could have reviewed the images as soon as you took them and made the necessary adjustments on the first day.

I think the only thing I would try would be to add some vignette to tone down the stems and what little bokeh balls are still in the background.

They are beautiful roses. Sorry to hear about the limb.

Thanks. The vignette is a great idea, hadn't thought of it at all.

As regards #3, I actually went back to get the next set of shots less than 10 minutes later, but the light was already gone. That is part of my question, really. Sometimes, we are in places and moments when the light is just right and I feel like I would like to improve my chances of capturing what I see. I need to use chimping better and change aperture and shutter speed immediately. I have never used bracketing, but maybe that is another possibility. The choice of focal length, for example, only struck me when I came back and stared at the initial image after a day.

I am bummed about the tree. Still waiting for the arborist to come by and give his verdict. The broken limb came down on 3 rose bushes, but they all look like they will survive.

 

[TNcasual]

Sometimes you just get lucky.

Or you can wait until dark and supply the lighting yourself. That is what I have done before. Especially using Live Composite to paint exactly what you want.

 

[RogerM]

I've been thinking for some time about commenting on these rose pictures.
My take; the two frames of the second attempt have better framing and greater depth of focus.
They are technically better shots.
BUT; these are ROSES not potato crisps in a bowl.
By stopping the aperture down you've lost the soft glow of the original picture that is so sympathetic to the subject matter. The satisfaction and pleasure to be gotten from an image is not only related to 'correct' composition, sharpness and colour but to more interpretive elements like this.
I know I'm not alone in this opinion; the eye and the brain attached to it tends to tire of hyper-reality.
The 'Rembrandt' effect is more than just spotlighting and black backgrounds.
I think you were closer to this in the first instance and really only required a few extra attempts at reframing and then a little development in software; a little dodging and burning etc.
That's what I think anyway.

 

[SVQuant]

I've been thinking for some time about commenting on these rose pictures.
My take; the two frames of the second attempt have better framing and greater depth of focus.
They are technically better shots.
BUT; these are ROSES not potato crisps in a bowl.
By stopping the aperture down you've lost the soft glow of the original picture that is so sympathetic to the subject matter. The satisfaction and pleasure to be gotten from an image is not only related to 'correct' composition, sharpness and colour but to more interpretive elements like this.
I know I'm not alone in this opinion; the eye and the brain attached to it tends to tire of hyper-reality.
The 'Rembrandt' effect is more than just spotlighting and black backgrounds.
I think you were closer to this in the first instance and really only required a few extra attempts at reframing and then a little development in software; a little dodging and burning etc.
That's what I think anyway.

Really appreciate the feedback and agree with your comment about hyper-reality. The soft glow was one of the initial draws of the scene and losing it bothered me as well.

However, I don't think that is (entirely) attributable to the stopping down. While I did stop down, I also more than doubled the focal length. I think that the depth of field in both the shots is about the same. I think that the difference is in the composition and focal point contributed to a much greater degree. The first image was shot from a slightly lower angle and meant that the lowest rose was actually closer while the open blooms in the later two images are much more in the same plane. The focal point in that image was on the lower rose, while in the later two it is on the rose on the upper left. Also, the opening of the blooms changed the amount of yellow which meant that some of the golden glow was lost due to that as well.

My other takeaway is that I should have shot more images the first time. Varying composition aperture and focal length would have been a good idea. I will try some PP on the original image and see what I can make of it.

FWIW, I posted #1 and #3 in the Flowers thread and they have the same number of likes.