Camera Tips: Better Flower Photos

Are you frustrated with your photos of flowers? When the garden starts to bloom and the fruit trees take on the colors that promise a bumper crop, it's always such a pleasure to be outside. So why is it hard to capture the annual event with your camera?

Branches are everywhere in the photos and leaves hang mysteriously from the corners. Even when I get up close with a macro lens, I either wind up cropping part of the petals off, too much of the flower is out of focus, or the sky and other parts of the tree or plant compromise the entire image. Then there's the wind to contend with and annoying shadows cast by the sun.

Five years ago I purchased my first digital camera and, because there was no expensive film processing involved, I began experimenting with different methods of taking good flower photos. It wasn't until about a year ago that I discovered an unusual technique called strobist that made me a little happier with the results. I say "a little," because there's nothing like being there, although the photos I'm getting are a a lot better than the snapshots I produced in the past.

The technique has been used for years in journalistic and glamor photos of celebrities. The arrival of digital imaging has seen a resurgence in its popularity and rightfully so, but it usually involves the use of several flash units, light stands, reflectors, tripod and much more.

I don't know about you, but the thought of pruning a branch just to drag it into a makeshift kitchen studio's lights defeats the entire purpose of having a garden. And, although I've come close before, I'm also not very fond of temporarily turning my front yard into a tripod and light stand maze.

In essence, the strobist technique employs a non-camera-mounted flash or flashes, usually remotely triggered by a camera-mounted unit. Outside it has even more impact, because you can use the sun, sunset, glowing city lights, etc., as yet another light source by slowing shutter speed down.

On the opposite end of the strobist spectrum, you can even turn daytime into dusk or night when the approach is pushed to the extreme. The photos I have here were taken at noon, on a slightly overcast day using only one flash, held in my hand at the sides of the flowers, remotely triggered by a unit atop my Canon 5D.

Since all the photos were taken of the fruit trees in my front yard as they bloomed, branches were everywhere in the background. Neighbor's yards and cars showed up prominently when I let the camera do the thinking and the flowers--which are very small--were just sort of there.

It's easier to get started than you think. Even if you don't have a remotely triggered flash unit you can take advantage of the strobist approach by simply using your camera's flash--but it will be more tough.

First, you're smarter than your digital camera. Yes, it has all those computerized chips in there, and it takes awesome photos nearly all the time. But it's not a mind reader. It thinks you want everything in focus, brightly lit and the edges just as colorful and interesting as the middle of the frame. When it comes to getting a single subject prominent in the photograph, more often than not, that's not the case. You've got to do the thinking, not the camera.

Turn your camera on manual mode and turn on the flash.

Second, try and give your camera a good depth of field. F 16 or f 22 if possible. By now your camera is so far out of its element that it's stuttering. Flowers like the peach and plum blooms I took cover a lot of ground on a branch, so it's best to make as many in focus as possible with a good depth of field. Also, concentrate on a single flower or group of flowers. A photo of the entire tree is nice, but even when something as photogenic as the cherry blossom festival is in full bloom in Washington, DC, it's usually not a photograph of a single tree that really captures your imagination.

Wait, won't that make all those annoying background branches be in focus as well? Yes, but because you're dictating how much light is going to be applied and where, it doesn't matter.

Third, if it's a bright day--like I battled with these blooms--and your digital camera has an adjustable ISO feature, turn it to the lowest setting possible (I used 100 ISO). By doing this the sensor will need more light to properly expose an image, which is where the flash comes in. Only those parts of the plant hit by the flash will appear exposed properly, forcing the background to fade to black or be dimly lit. Regardless how tack sharp they look on the photograph, they will not be a prominent element.

Fourth, give your camera a high shutter speed to beat the wind. The shutter speed will also determine how well exposed the background will appear in the final image. If you want that blue sky, think speeds of 100 or less on a sunny day. If you want it black, go faster.

Focus and take the picture. Since we're working in digital, if you don't like what you took, erase it, adjust whatever necessary and try again.

If you're using a camera-mounted strobe, odds are good some of the branches and leaves directly behind the flowers show up prominently. In this case you can change your position, hold your outside the frame to block part of the flash, or even tape a piece of tissue paper over the flash to reduce its output.

If you have a remotely triggered flash, like the 580 EX I used, you can simply move its location so the flowers get all of the light, and nothing hits superflous foliage. It just fades to black and you get an image that, by definition strobist style, forces the viewer to see what you imagined by simply moving the flash to the appropriate position.

Maybe it's cheating, but since the definition of photography is "painting with light," I don't think so. I'm a lot happier with the results I'm getting this year, and even if the images aren't good enough to hang in a museum I enjoy them a lot more than those frustrating snapshots from the past.