Flowers are too easy to photograph.
Dave L
I am starting to think that pictures of flowers are a dime a dozen. They
must be one of the most photographed subjects ever. I too have taken a few
pics of flowers. You see so many pictures scattered everywhere. It seems to
be somewhat uninteresting as a photographic subjects now. They are beautiful
all on there own. All you have to do is get good light and sharp focus and
you are assured yet another pretty picture. I am finding them less and less
interesting. Maybe its just overkill on my part by looking at so many
amateur galleries. I do find myself skipping right through the flower pics
now.
Having said that, when I see a nice looking wild flower I can't resist
snapping a pic or two.
What are your thoughts? Any exceptional pics or galleries of flowers you
know? Is it possible to take a stunning pic of a flower that could actually
impress someone who has seen hundreds? Stupid question I know, still
interested in your thoughts.
Dave L.
Val Sharp
> I am not trying to start a war here, or be insulting...but:
>
> I am starting to think that pictures of flowers are a dime a dozen.
I'm one of those amateurs - I've only had a camera for a couple of
months, and as soon as I got a couple of close-up filters I went out
into the back garden and snapped flowers.
My photos are what you might expect - nothing special ... pleasant
enough for the most part ... much room for improvement ... impressed
my friends and family ... but still, it seemed too easy for someone
with no experience.
On photoSIG I've seen perfect roses captured at just the right moment,
in just the right light, and the first time it took my breath.
Then I saw another ... and another ... and now I think there has to be
more to it than this.
Perhaps it's a bit like photographing a sculpture - the greatest art
is in the creation of the sculpture - it's too easy for a photographer
to borrow heavily on that art, and himself merely supply the technical
expertise.
( Tho' for someone with very little technical expertise, perhaps I say
'merely' a little too easily :-) )
I'd guess the creative input of the photographer has to be at least as
great as the artistic value of the subject, to make the photo
worthwhile ... unless it's for a book on sculpture or botany, of course.
OTOH, and bearing in mind my lack of expertise, I'd be interested in
your opinion of
<http://www3.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=291789>
--
Regards,
Val Sharp - Edinburgh
Galleries - <www.pbase.com/valsharp>
Curt Bousquet
in news:665s9.3708$OG5.5...@news20.bellglobal.com:
I agree. It really takes something special for a flower shot to
make me stop and notice it. But OTOH, people who are just
learning about photography (film OR digital) can learn a lot
about exposure, composition and depth of field by playing with
flower photos.
I still see a unique and stunning flower photo once in a while,
but I also see a lot of 'regular' flower shots that are well
composed colorful photos that the creator can be proud of. I
just don't think they hold much interest for anyone BUT the
owner... I think that flowers are a 'phase' that every
photographer goes through. I stil find myself trying for that
'stunning' flower photo once in a while, but once you've done it
once there isn't much need to keep going back to it again and
again.
BTW: Another category that holds no appeal for me is pets. Cats
and dogs are ONLY cute to the *owner*. As far as I'm concerned,
photos of Spot or Mittens belong in the scrapbook not in the art
gallery. But I'd be willing to bet that every photographer has
some category of photos that just don't do anything for them,
whether it be landscapes, macro photgraphy, sports, or any other
genre.
--
[Ô]
Curt Bousquet
moc.enilnacs@PTNN < Reverse for email
Please check out some of my digital images
(CP950 and D100)
http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=4931
Charlie
wrote:
> OTOH, and bearing in mind my lack of expertise, I'd be interested in
> your opinion of
> <http://www3.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=291789>
IMO you got everything just right.
They look good enough to eat!
Time for breakfast.
Ex.
them as well. Early morning with low angle lighting and a watermister helps
too.
Just going out and pointing and shooting is boring for any subject.
My neice took a shot of bloom floating in a wine glass of water. It was
grainier then hell, had little contrast and really low colour saturation. It
stood out from the slew of other flower shots the two of us have taken over
the years. It may have been accidental ( improper exposure ) but it looked
good.
Push the envelope.
Ex.
"Dave L" <nospamm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:665s9.3708$OG5.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Paul Cordes
Taking a stunning picture of a pretty or beautiful object is very difficult.
So when its common and beautiful its nearly impossible.
The pictures are a dime a dozen because flowers are beautiful and attract
almost everyone. They're also not very interesting because of the
difficulty of getting the stunning shot. The difficulty is badly
underestimated by the amature.
Just my opinion......
"Dave L" <nospamm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:665s9.3708$OG5.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Rachael Nex
"Charlie" <cdi...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:cdilks-B500B2....@news.fu-berlin.de...
They look very inviting - but I woulda cropped it abit more to make the
flowers central, IMHO.
Rachael
David Lawrence
shots of some migrating Monarch butterflies on a butterfly bush and some macro
shots of ants eating the glucose inside the petals of a rose of sharon flower.
Just keep an eye out for the unusual and look at what others have done.
I'm always looking for shots that haven't been done before.
Dave
Rachael Nex
"Curt Bousquet" <NN...@scanline.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92AC42665F...@64.154.60.178...
>
> I agree. It really takes something special for a flower shot to
> make me stop and notice it. But OTOH, people who are just
> learning about photography (film OR digital) can learn a lot
> about exposure, composition and depth of field by playing with
> flower photos.
I would agree. I've done flowers to a death I reckon. But I still do them
because I am very fond of flowers generally and I mostly photograph for my
own pleasure.
>
> I still see a unique and stunning flower photo once in a while,
> but I also see a lot of 'regular' flower shots that are well
> composed colorful photos that the creator can be proud of. I
> just don't think they hold much interest for anyone BUT the
> owner... I think that flowers are a 'phase' that every
> photographer goes through. I stil find myself trying for that
> 'stunning' flower photo once in a while, but once you've done it
> once there isn't much need to keep going back to it again and
> again.
>
> BTW: Another category that holds no appeal for me is pets. Cats
> and dogs are ONLY cute to the *owner*.
I suppose it depends on whether your creature is just plain cute or actually
artistically beautiful. Course, all us pet owners would say our pets *are*
beautiful - but I actually can make the distinction <tongue in cheek>. ;-)
As far as I'm concerned,
> photos of Spot or Mittens belong in the scrapbook not in the art
> gallery. But I'd be willing to bet that every photographer has
> some category of photos that just don't do anything for them,
> whether it be landscapes, macro photgraphy, sports, or any other
> genre.
Yus - I've got a gallery full of pictures of pet rats that are in no way
interesting to anyone else but me and other rat owners. But I have portraits
proper of my dog and of the local neighborhood cats that I would like to
think are interesting to anyone who likes dogs or cats. This actually isn't
a terribly good example but I don't have the others I refer to up yet
http://www.badrats.co.uk/gallery/images/bindersun86.jpg. IYSWIM.
I suppose it depends on whether you appreciate animals for what they are -
i.e. as beautiful as flowers, plus all the great characteristics you get
with living, breathing beings. If a flower can be a truly artistic subject
worthy of a place in the "art gallery", why not an animal too ? It depends
on the composition and all the other artistic variables involved in
photography, as ever, afterall.
Personally, the one photographic genre that does nothing for me is people.
Not remotely interested in pictures of people (the only ones I have are
snaps taken at parties, just for memories sake rather than for art's sake -
I am so uninterested in looking at pictures of people, any people, that we
didn't even have a photographer for our wedding - we just asked anyone
taking snaps to send us acopy of the good'uns) - give me a cute puppy or a
stunning flower any day of the week !
Rachael
Don Stauffer
image, that does not necessarily make for good photographs. There is
the composition end of it. That is one thing the superautomatic cameras
will not do for you. The eye of the shooter is what makes a properly
exposed great photo different from a properly exposed ho-hum one. There
are rules of composition that applie to flower photography just as they
do to shooting other subjects.
--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
stau...@usfamily.net
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
Charlie
"Rachael Nex" <shi...@SPAMSPAMbadrats.co.uk> wrote:
Maybe, with the cropping, but I like it.
Hey Val,
What kind of camera? Doesn't even look digital.
Nice bokeh.
Bob Ingraham
aunt has been taking photographs most of her adult life, and for awhile was
into 8mm film. I remember watching one of her movies of flowers -- the woman
could focus on one flower for three minutes, and it wasn't even blowing in
the wind! Now that's exciting film making!
While flower photos may be a dime a dozen, excellent flower photos are very
rare indeed. The only worthwhile flower picture I ever took in color was of
a very old flowerbox, which was in need of paint and sitting on the ground
beside an old ranch house. It was filled with tired but colorful geraniums.
It said more about the owner of the house than it did about geraniums.
I did get some nice black-and-white flower pictures. In fact, I set up a
challenge for myself, to take good photos of flowers without relying on
color film. I think it's actually easier than using color film.
The problem with most flower pictures that I see is that the photographer
tends to concentrate on the whole rather than the part, the flower *bed*
rather than an individual flower. The use of large apertures to isolate
individual flowers or groups of flowers from the background and foreground
seems especially useful in obtaining worthwhile shots.
I've gotten some nice shots, too, using multiple exposures. One technique
I've seen but haven't tried myself is taking two exposures of the same
flower, one in focus and one slightly out of focus. Another I would like to
try some day is to photograph flowers using slow shutter speeds on very
windy days.
I've uploaded one of my successful flower pictures, of cherry blossoms on
the naval base at Yokosuka, Japan, to my website. It was taken in
pre-digital days with a 105mm Nikkor lens, f2.5 at 1/1000 on Kodachrome. The
high shutter speed was useful both for proper exposure and because the
blossoms were whipping back and forth in a high wind. The URL is
http://www.ingraham.ca/bob/cherryblossoms.jpg.
Bob
--
An Estonian rock group called Radar was playing in Irkutsk, a freezing wind
blew across the river, the toilet seat in my room had been cut from a flat
and splintery piece of plywood. How had these people sent rockets to Mars?
Paul Theroux, in Riding the Iron Rooster
--
> From: "Dave L" <nospamm...@sympatico.ca>
> Organization: Bell Sympatico
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
> Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 00:26:54 -0400
> Subject: Flowers are too easy to photograph.
Charlie
Charlie <cdi...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
PS,
I see now from the site that you used a Canon PowerShot A40.
Amazing! You have a real winner there!
Val Sharp
> In article <cdilks-B500B2....@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> Charlie <cdi...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <QF9s9.592$OC2.34530@wards>, Val Sharp <v...@valsharp.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>OTOH, and bearing in mind my lack of expertise, I'd be interested in
>>>your opinion of
>>> <http://www3.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=291789>
>>
>>IMO you got everything just right.
>>They look good enough to eat!
>>Time for breakfast.
:-)
Also agreeing with Rachael - I could never decide before, but now
starting to see how it would benefit from further cropping.
> PS,
> I see now from the site that you used a Canon PowerShot A40.
> Amazing! You have a real winner there!
'Tis a modest 2Mpx, but very versatile.
froggbr
large proportion of my photos seem to be close ups of autumn leaves,
of various colours and arrangments. That, and extreme close ups of
rusty objects for some reason. I flatter myself that they are nicely
composed and all, but they're hardly the most challenging of subjects.
Going off on a tangent, what _does_ make a good photo? I keep telling
myself a good picture can be found anywhere, and yet...so much of it
seems to depend on having decent light and being in an at least
vaguely interesting place. e.g. I saw a web site recently featuring a
beautiful panoramic shot of a Helsinki street on a winter's night. It
inspired me to go out at night here, before it dawned on me that the
local generic pedestrianised town centre (no buildings older than
1970, from the look of it) just didn't seem provide the same
opportunities.
Another site featured a very nice shot of a fire truck covered in
icicles, with the observation that you don't have to go far to find an
interesting subject (yes you do, that fire truck must be 2000 miles
from here! We don't do icicles or any other kind of 'interesting'
weather here).
The thing that's annoying me at the moment is the relentless dull
white skies and directionless grey ambient light round here this time
of year. Is it just me or does everyone find that particular kind of
weather hopeless for photography? Everything ends up dull and low
contrast, and its not light enough for fast shutter speeds. Give me
mists, fog, thunderstorms, anything but uniform thick cloud laying
like a blanket of phlegm across the sky.
"Dave L" <nospamm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<665s9.3708$OG5.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
Bob Ingraham
improve it, but not cropping to make the flowers in the centre, as one
poster suggested. Having the main subject element in the centre of an image
is a sure way to kill it. The rule of thirds works well, always has, always
will. I've taken the liberty of cropping your image in the way that I see
most improves it: http://www.ingraham.ca/bob/valsphotocropped.jpg
(It's worth noting, however, that as a stock image the extra space at the
top is ideal for text.)
Bob Ingraham
Vancouver
> From: Charlie <cdi...@bellatlantic.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
> Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 08:23:26 -0400
> Subject: Re: Flowers are too easy to photograph.
Dave L
"Val Sharp" <v...@valsharp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QF9s9.592$OC2.34530@wards...
Dave L
owner. I just saw this show talking about a guy who dresses up his dogs in
clothes and takes pics. I can not stand those pics, but, he has taken many
pics of the dogs with props, posing in all different ways. Some of those are
very very cool. Fay Ray was one of the dogs. The guys name is William
Wegman. Try this link. Might work.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.afterimagegallery.com/dlwegmanl.j
pg&imgrefurl=http://www.afterimagegallery.com/dlwegman.htm&h=563&w=560&prev=
/images%3Fq%3Dfay%2Bray%2Bpictures%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF
-8%26sa%3DG
"Curt Bousquet" <NN...@scanline.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92AC42665F...@64.154.60.178...
Dave L
Especially when its done buy a child.
Dave L.
"Ex." <Eat.H...@Turdmail.com> wrote in message
news:aorj0...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Dave L
make it look stunning...not as easy.
"Paul Cordes" <late*ma...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:pods9.239$z_5.14...@twister2.starband.net...
Dave L
"David Lawrence" <dola...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3DB16CCA...@sympatico.ca...
Dave L
determined to find them. I was on my way to work 2 days ago, saw a
grass/weed covered feild I have seen hundereds of times before. For some
reason I looked at it and framed a portion of it in my minds eye. It was of
an area that was very simple, had three horizontal segments to it, each
segment a uniform shade different from the next. I realized how nice that
pic could be. That got me thinking about all the different possibilities out
there. I think I need to train my self to look at things as they would be on
a 2d pic, and rememeber that less is more.
Dave L.
David Lawrence
is way too slow, I'll try to upload some pics to PhotoSIG in the near future
with a link.
Sorry about the delays,,,I have over 100,000 Analog and digital images and It's
difficult to decide...Hehehe...No really...I will upload some of my more recent
digital images in the next few days.
I've been doing a lot of searching on the web and I'm tired...I know..Lame
excuse.(But true)
Dave
Val Sharp
> Yep. its a nice shot. Pretty flowers and focused.
Yep :-D
I too would like to see something to which I could aspire.
Val Sharp
> ... I've taken the liberty of cropping your image in the way that I see
> most improves it: http://www.ingraham.ca/bob/valsphotocropped.jpg
Yes, that definitely improves it.
(Interesting note about stock images.)
David Lawrence
my Dimage 5 the other day, It was taken in black and white mode.
http://www2.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=374905
Ex.
How close did you get? The Di5 has 7x zoom?
Nice shot....I'm jealous. :)
Ex.
"David Lawrence" <dola...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3DB1D479...@sympatico.ca...
David Lawrence
regular slr.
I couldn't use the macro mode because it was a very windy day and besides...I'd
scare them away.
I did some colour shots...But...They were too homogenized...You know...Everday
looking.
Thanks for the praise.
Dave
jam
My 2ข...
Pictures of flowers are indeed a dime a dozen, as are pictures of
kids, pets, lakes and mountains. I'm a repeat offender on all fronts,
and I openly admit that I enjoy looking at the ill-gotten gains --
which is =precisely= why I keep taking them.
Your beef can't be that people take and enjoy their own flower photos,
since you do the same. If it's that they expect you to look at or
compliment their flower photos, I have some sympathy with that, but
it's generally an easily avoidable source of pain in life.
IMO, flowers aren't all that easy if an "exceptional" picture is the
goal, but most flower pictures aren't taken with that end in mind.
--
Jeremy McCreary
jeremy(AT)cliffshade(DOT)com
www.cliffshade.com/dpfwiw/
Denver, CO
"Dave L" <nospamm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:665s9.3708$OG5.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
HRosita
One way to improve your eye for images is to set yourself a subject and go find
10 (arbitrary number) situation that fit it. think of a story that would tie
the pictures together. For example: Bridges, Color Red (or blue or green),
cars, benches, windows, doors, etc.
the possibilities are endless.
Another challenge is to rope off (virtually) a square yard and see how many
interesting pictures you can take.
Another self assignment would be to take a landscape picture, then keep getting
closer, taking pictures, until you are down do a macro or closeup of an
interesting fruit, leaf, wild flower, etc.
Rosita
Dave L
"HRosita" <hro...@aol.comnet> wrote in message
news:20021019202157...@mb-cf.aol.com...
Dave L
for other opinions. I was surprised to see so much agreement.
To sum this thread up, I would say that flowers are easy to take nice
pictures of, because they ARE nice. Flowers are hard to take stunning
pictures of because they are so nice allready. Its hard to improve on
something that is so photographed and pretty.
"jam" <see_m...@save-net.com> wrote in message
news:aossh1$fr8$1...@news.chatlink.com...
cuong, tran
<shi...@SPAMSPAMbadrats.co.uk> wrote:
snip
>
>"Curt Bousquet" <NN...@scanline.nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns92AC42665F...@64.154.60.178...
>I would agree. I've done flowers to a death I reckon. But I still do them
>because I am very fond of flowers generally and I mostly photograph for my
>own pleasure.
>
>I suppose it depends on whether your creature is just plain cute or actually
>artistically beautiful. Course, all us pet owners would say our pets *are*
>beautiful - but I actually can make the distinction <tongue in cheek>. ;-)
>
>Personally, the one photographic genre that does nothing for me is people.
>Not remotely interested in pictures of people (the only ones I have are
>snaps taken at parties, just for memories sake rather than for art's sake -
>I am so uninterested in looking at pictures of people, any people, that we
>didn't even have a photographer for our wedding - we just asked anyone
>taking snaps to send us acopy of the good'uns) - give me a cute puppy or a
>stunning flower any day of the week !
>
>
>
>
>Rachael
>
Me too, I agree with your opinion. Just to show it's still possible to
make good photos of pets, please look at this and tell me it' s
boring...:
http://www.digitalphotocontest.com/photodisplay.asp?photoid=370217
It is from karen Spychalski , winner at Digital photo contest...(not
mine)
Don Ellis
Mike Fields
in a picture -- I love that picture, but I saw it exactly
backwards to the caption "the long walk home" -- I
saw it as "waiting for his master to come home". Great
picture that does tell a story.
mikey
"cuong, tran" <pt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1fb4ruco5m1gijk03...@4ax.com...
Dave L
"cuong, tran" <pt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1fb4ruco5m1gijk03...@4ax.com...
Mike Fields
pictures of my dogs http://home.attbi.com/~mike.fields/family.htm
part way down the page ... a little humor here ;-)
"Mike Fields" <mr.ga...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3wqs9.20966$zE6....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
cuong, tran
Those are simply lovely puppies, and they are hilarious and so cute
in the mud coat !
The fish looked incredible too
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 04:53:44 GMT, "Mike Fields" <mr.ga...@attbi.com>
wrote:
Charlie
"Mike Fields" <mr.ga...@attbi.com> wrote:
> Just for the fun of it, take a look at the "before and after"
> pictures of my dogs http://home.attbi.com/~mike.fields/family.htm
> part way down the page ... a little humor here ;-)
Cute pups!
I like the muddy picture. Their faces stand out and they look even
cuter.
Geoff Bryant
getting to this thread.
However, because I am a professional horticultural photographer and garden
book writer, I might have something to contribute. And while I'd hesitate to
say that I take pictures of flowers for a living, such photos certainly make
up much of my shooting.
Sure, flowers are easy to shoot, but they're not always easy to do well.
What's more, what you might think of as 'done well' isn't necessarily what
makes a picture sell. You see, it's all about knowing your subject,
understanding what it is about that subject that you want to capture or
illustrate and then describing what you've done.
I don't want to sound like some know-it-all but I'd bet that many people who
have contributed to this thread have little knowledge about binomial
nomenclature, couldn't describe the difference between a cultivar and a
hybrid, and really wouldn't appreciate that with flower and garden shots, at
least commercially, the caption is almost as important as the picture.
Flowers are pretty, there's no denying that, but once you get past that it's
all about presentation and subject knowledge. I see so many shots of
colourful roses, lilies, gardens, or whatever, that are just entitled rose,
lily or garden. It's to that, not the act of photographing flowers per se,
that I have to say so what? To me an unidentified subject, or worse yet a
misidentified subject, just isn't worth shooting.
There are two reasons for that. The first is that in order to sell my shots
in the book market, not just as arty pictures, they have to illustrate
something and I have to know what the subject is in order to be able to
write a meaningful caption and generate a sale. Secondly, it's my
understanding of plants that keeps me taking pictures of them. If I couldn't
tell a 'Sappho' from a 'Lem's Monarch' then sure I'd get bored shooting
repeated rhododendron pictures, but understanding the plants gives them a
life and makes them innately interesting. Knowing the history of their
breeding and how they're used in gardens adds to that. And all those things
combined help me to know that what I'm presenting in my pictures is the
plant at its best or at a particular stage of its life, not an atypical,
malformed or damaged example.
We all have an innate understanding of people, which is a large part of what
make portraiture compelling - we usually know what it says without having to
ask or be told. However, we don't all have an innate understanding of plants
or other areas. I suspect that to know a good flower picture, not just a
pretty one, you have to know about flowers. The same goes for cats,
buildings and many other areas. To see beyond the surface you need to know
what goes on below it.
This has been a long message and while I could rant on for ever about this,
I'd better wrap it up now. So, to sum it up, taking flower pictures is as
much about the love of plants as it is about photography. To get a great
garden shot, that devotion to the subject has to show in some way.
I don't really know that I achieve that, but if you want to form your own
opinion feel free to visit http://www.geoffbryant.com
The site is still in the early stages of development and I have too much
work on right now to do much about it, but it should give you an idea of my
work and hopefully the pictures convey what I mean better than my words.
Geoff Bryant
Mike Fields
I want to take a picture of a flower, just about the time I get
things set up, the wind comes up and everything starts moving
around ... I believe Murphy may have something to do with
that ....
mikey
"Geoff Bryant" <geoff...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ke3u9.1055$8o1.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> As I don't look at the digital newsgroup that often, I'm a little late
> getting to this thread.
>
>
>
> However, because I am a professional horticultural photographer and garden
> book writer, I might have something to contribute. And while I'd hesitate
to
> say that I take pictures of flowers for a living, such photos certainly
make
> up much of my shooting.
>
>
>
David Lawrence
Dave
Dave L
I did visit your page and do like your shots.
There is no doubt that interest in what you are shooting will show up in
your pictures. I saw that straight away when I noticed your sunflower shot.
You chose to put it in the sky as a backdrop which I found very fitting.
Thanks for your insight. It would be great if you could do a post with your
top 5 tips for flower and plant photography.
Thanks.
Dave L.
"Geoff Bryant" <geoff...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ke3u9.1055$8o1.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Geoff Bryant
Alright, my top 5 Plant Photography Tips
1.. Unless you are simply physically unable to, always use a tripod.
2.. For the sharpest, cleanest, most saturated images, use slow speed
transparency film. If using digital set the ISO to 200 or lower. Consider
medium format (I shoot 6×7cm) for its better tonal gradation.
3.. Make careful choices about depth-of-field and the exact focusing
plane. Most often you'll want more DOF than physics or the wind will allow,
but do consider how using shallow DOF can isolate a subject, and don't rely
on autofocus when shooting close-ups.
4.. Small apertures and slow film mean long shutter speeds. Be patient,
the breeze usually will drop, if only briefly enough to allow you to get the
shot.
5.. Don't shoot close-ups in bright contrasty sunlight without using some
kind of fill-in lighting such as flash or a reflector. Nothing kills a
close-up quicker than blown out highlights and/or pitch black shadows.
Conversely, bright midday sun - so awkward in many photographic situations -
is useful for whole tree portraits. At midday the shadows are shortest and
the bright light will allow you to use a polariser to accentuate the foliage
colour and the blue sky.
Geoff Bryant
"Dave L" <nospamm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Wbmu9.14366$Kf.16...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Dave L
That was quick. I did not know the last one. I will give it a try. Nice set
of tips, some I knew abit about, I will try to put them all together the
next time I am photographing flowers.
Dave L.
"Geoff Bryant" <geoff...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:05pu9.1312$8o1.2...@news.xtra.co.nz...