Photos - Wild Flowers
Icarus
Have a look at these great pictures of Wild Flowers in England
Comments welcome.
http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Wild%20Flowers%2001.htm
Icarus
Phil Cook
Pretty looking pictures, but some technical issues. There seems to be
a lack of depth of field and some aren't particularly sharp. What
camera are you using? It would be better if you could use a smaller
aperture to maximise depth of field. A few words to tell us what they
are and what time of year you took the pictures would be nice.
What on earth is going on with the frame of this one
http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_022.jpg and some others?
Are all those colour fringes your fault?
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
Icarus
Thanks for saying they are pretty pictures. I take your point about
the technical issues and am trying all the time to improve. When it
comes down to it I just like taking pretty pictures. :-)
The pictures are more a record of a joyful event in finding something
I have not seen before, a memory more than a brilliant photo from
National Geographic.
The picture you refer to was taken in a dark wood, its a Yew tree and
to my mind depicts the fall of an old and mighty tree, over time, if
man does not interfer, renewal will occur and a new sapling will grow
in its place. The tree is located in a rare Yew tree wood, the likes
of which I have never seen full of beautiful flowers and butterflies.
I have not dismissed your points, the event is more important to me
than a classy photo and I hope that people see that as I am sure many
do.
Peace
Icarus
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Man Himself
"Phil Cook" <u-r-...@p-t-cook.RfErMeOeVsEeCrAvPeS.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qmr280dk91tvs9rkc...@4ax.com...
> On 17 Apr 2004 06:35:02 -0700, Icarus wrote:
>
> It would be better if you could use a smaller aperture to maximise depth
of field.
Personally I quite like the larger apeture approach to keep the subject
sharp and the background slightly blurry. I feel this works quite well when
the background is quite 'busy' (random pattern of grass, other flowers,
etc.) as it helps to make the main subject distinct.
Michael Farthing
<john0...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>The picture you refer to was taken in a dark wood, its a Yew tree and
>to my mind depicts the fall of an old and mighty tree, over time, if
>man does not interfer, renewal will occur and a new sapling will grow
>in its place. The tree is located in a rare Yew tree wood, the likes
>of which I have never seen full of beautiful flowers and butterflies.
Icarus for the top job at English Nature, I say!
--
Michael Farthing
cyclades
Software House
Simon Caldwell
>It would be better if you could use a smaller
>aperture to maximise depth of field.
I disagree with this. Mostly, the flower (or whatever) is sharp and
the (less interesting) background foliage is not. IMHO this is how it
should be, unless the background is also relevant in some way.
S.
stemc ©
"Phil Cook" <u-r-...@p-t-cook.RfErMeOeVsEeCrAvPeS.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qmr280dk91tvs9rkc...@4ax.com...
<snip>
| It would be better if you could use a smaller
| aperture to maximise depth of field.
<snip>
Nahhh, get in close to the flowers and minimise the depth of field by using
a larger aperture, as the other two guys have suggested. There's nothing
worse than a detailed and distracting background taking the eye off the main
flower. The background should complimenting the flower, not competing
against it.
Ste
Icarus
Here, Here !!! I'll nominate him !!
Your not Farthing of Farthing Wood are you by any chance :-)
Icarus
-----------------------------------------------------
Michael Farthing <m...@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<EZ5FmYBs...@cyclades.demon.co.uk>...
Paul Saunders
>> It would be better if you could use a smaller aperture to maximise
>> depth of field.
>
> Personally I quite like the larger apeture approach to keep the
> subject sharp and the background slightly blurry. I feel this works
> quite well when the background is quite 'busy' (random pattern of
> grass, other flowers, etc.) as it helps to make the main subject
> distinct.
I'd agree on the whole, but Phil does have a point. The problem is that
if the depth of field is too narrow, not enough flowers are in focus,
whereas if the depth of field is too wide you get the background in
focus too. Difficult to find the best balance between the two. I
always found it a problem. Perhaps that's why I never really got into
flower photography.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
Phil Cook
>The Man Himself wrote:
>
>>> It would be better if you could use a smaller aperture to maximise
>>> depth of field.
>>
>> Personally I quite like the larger apeture approach to keep the
>> subject sharp and the background slightly blurry. I feel this works
>> quite well when the background is quite 'busy' (random pattern of
>> grass, other flowers, etc.) as it helps to make the main subject
>> distinct.
>
>I'd agree on the whole, but Phil does have a point. The problem is that
>if the depth of field is too narrow, not enough flowers are in focus,
>whereas if the depth of field is too wide you get the background in
>focus too. Difficult to find the best balance between the two. I
>always found it a problem. Perhaps that's why I never really got into
>flower photography.
It helps to have a camera with DOF preview. Flower photog with a
digital compact is hit and miss, though the Minolta A2 should be
pretty good with the 1Mpix electronic viewfinder and manual focus with
magnification available too. Semi macro work needs careful setup.
Carrying a portable diffuser, reflector and backgrounds, also of
course a tripod (one of those Benbo ones so you can put the camera
anywhere close to the ground is probably best) can work wonders if you
are at all serious about it.
Stewart Robert Hinsley
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>The Man Himself wrote:
>
>>> It would be better if you could use a smaller aperture to maximise
>>> depth of field.
>>
>> Personally I quite like the larger apeture approach to keep the
>> subject sharp and the background slightly blurry. I feel this works
>> quite well when the background is quite 'busy' (random pattern of
>> grass, other flowers, etc.) as it helps to make the main subject
>> distinct.
>
>I'd agree on the whole, but Phil does have a point. The problem is that
>if the depth of field is too narrow, not enough flowers are in focus,
>whereas if the depth of field is too wide you get the background in
>focus too. Difficult to find the best balance between the two. I
>always found it a problem. Perhaps that's why I never really got into
>flower photography.
>
>Paul
>--
I find that problem is the balance between shutter speed and depth of
focus. If I get in real close to the flower, or use maximum zoom,
there's less light, and I either have to use a low shutter speed,
whereupon camera shake strikes (I'll have to start carrying a mini-
tripod and see if that helps), or use a higher shutter speed, and find I
haven't got enough of the field in focus - in some cases not even a
single flower. (Pictures of Scurvy Grass and Ground Ivy from this
morning not brilliant.)
I have the same problem with most insects (butterflies are conveniently
flat).
Since most of my online photos are of cultivated flowers I can't give
you a URL for some sample wild flowers.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
http://www.malvaceae.info/Genera/gallery.html
Michael Farthing
>
>Here, Here !!! I'll nominate him !!
>
>Your not Farthing of Farthing Wood are you by any chance :-)
>
Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Sorry no. Absolutely not. From you of all people!
Watership Down perhaps. That recognised that animals are animals and
that they eat each other. Farthing's Wood is an utter load of
sentimental, ridiculous crap! Oh sure, the fox won't eat the rabbit!
Cooperation is the way forward! Tell me, what's in it for the fox?
>Icarus
Phil Cook
The point I ws trying to make was that some of the images seemed to
have too little DOF (not enough of the flower in focus) or be too
soft. Perhaps a bit of work in PS wouldn't go amiss.
Phil Cook
The one of the yellow iris has too little DOF so little is in focus it
looks like the whole thing is out of focus, same goes for the bog
asphodel. The yew berries have distracting out of focus leaves in
front of them. There is too much detail in the background of the
teasel, despite it being out of focus it distracts. Looking again I'd
say the photos as a whole were good snaps rather than crafted
photograps.
stemc ©
| On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:16:34 +0100, stemc Š wrote:
|
| >
| >"Phil Cook" <u-r-...@p-t-cook.RfErMeOeVsEeCrAvPeS.co.uk> wrote in
message
| >news:qmr280dk91tvs9rkc...@4ax.com...
| >| On 17 Apr 2004 06:35:02 -0700, Icarus wrote:
| >
| ><snip>
| >
| >| It would be better if you could use a smaller
| >| aperture to maximise depth of field.
| >
| ><snip>
| >
| >Nahhh, get in close to the flowers and minimise the depth of field by
using
| >a larger aperture, as the other two guys have suggested. There's nothing
| >worse than a detailed and distracting background taking the eye off the
main
| >flower. The background should complimenting the flower, not competing
| >against it.
|
| The one of the yellow iris has too little DOF so little is in focus it
| looks like the whole thing is out of focus, same goes for the bog
| asphodel.
You'll have to forgive me, I'm not a flower person, so I don't know which
images you are referring to.
| The yew berries have distracting out of focus leaves in
| front of them.
I think I know which berries you mean. Many of my flower shots have had
leaves distract like this once I've uploaded them to my PC. I never seem to
spot them in the view finder though...
| There is too much detail in the background of the
| teasel, despite it being out of focus it distracts.
Well, being out of focus is a technical issue, but increasing or decreasing
the depth of field won't help.
| Looking again I'd
| say the photos as a whole were good snaps rather than crafted
| photograps.
Well, you'd know all about these wouldn't you? ;-) Seriously though, you do
like to critique, so why not join Photosig.com or Usefilm.com?
| --
| Phil Cook
Ste
stemc ©
"Icarus" <john0...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:97d9e678.04041...@posting.google.com...
Hi Icarus, I notice you've also got photos of Formby Point (a local haunt to
me, and some you've got some nice images there), and Sefton Park Palm House.
Where about are you based, and what camera are you using?
Ste
Paul Saunders
> There is too much detail in the background of the
> teasel, despite it being out of focus it distracts.
And thus the issue of bokeh raises its ugly head. I haven't looked
closely at the image in question, but just a technical point. If one
wants to get really serious about this kind of photography it would be
important to use lenses with good bokeh. I never realised the
importance of this until I noticed how bad the bokeh is on my 300D's
lens. Irrelevant for landscapes though.
Phil Cook
>"Phil Cook" <u-r-...@p-t-cook.RfErMeOeVsEeCrAvPeS.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:9ts58053pi18ba7rc...@4ax.com...
>| On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:16:34 +0100, stemc Š wrote:
>|
>| >
>| >"Phil Cook" <u-r-...@p-t-cook.RfErMeOeVsEeCrAvPeS.co.uk> wrote in
>message
>| >news:qmr280dk91tvs9rkc...@4ax.com...
>| >| On 17 Apr 2004 06:35:02 -0700, Icarus wrote:
>| >
>| ><snip>
>| >
>| >| It would be better if you could use a smaller
>| >| aperture to maximise depth of field.
>| >
>| ><snip>
>| >
>| >Nahhh, get in close to the flowers and minimise the depth of field by
>using
>| >a larger aperture, as the other two guys have suggested. There's nothing
>| >worse than a detailed and distracting background taking the eye off the
>main
>| >flower. The background should complimenting the flower, not competing
>| >against it.
>|
>| The one of the yellow iris has too little DOF so little is in focus it
>| looks like the whole thing is out of focus, same goes for the bog
>| asphodel.
>
>You'll have to forgive me, I'm not a flower person, so I don't know which
>images you are referring to.
Iris http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_051.jpg
Bog Asphodel http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_043.jpg
>
>
>| The yew berries have distracting out of focus leaves in
>| front of them.
>
>I think I know which berries you mean.
These http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_020.jpg ?
>Many of my flower shots have had
>leaves distract like this once I've uploaded them to my PC. I never seem to
>spot them in the view finder though...
Taking time to look at the taking phase is all important.
>
>| There is too much detail in the background of the
>| teasel, despite it being out of focus it distracts.
>
>Well, being out of focus is a technical issue, but increasing or decreasing
>the depth of field won't help.
>
>| Looking again I'd
>| say the photos as a whole were good snaps rather than crafted
>| photographs.
>
>Well, you'd know all about these wouldn't you? ;-)
OK then have a look at my site, not many flower photos on there
though. Say what you like, I know Mr. Dainty thinks they are crap :-)
Some pictures on there are snaps, some have taken a lot of effort in
the taking and processing in PS. http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk
>Seriously though, you do
>like to critique, so why not join Photosig.com or Usefilm.com?
The OP asked for comments. I'm happy to oblige.
Paul Saunders
> It helps to have a camera with DOF preview.
I've never got on with DOF previews. Usually the image is too dark to
clearly see what's in focus anyway. Still good to have the option but
not easy to use.
> Flower photog with a
> digital compact is hit and miss, though the Minolta A2 should be
> pretty good with the 1Mpix electronic viewfinder and manual focus with
> magnification available too.
At least you could see the overall effect of the aperture on the LCD.
Paul Saunders
> Well, being out of focus is a technical issue, but increasing or
> decreasing the depth of field won't help.
Well decreasing the DOF will put them more out of focus but that in
itself may not make them look any less distracting. Good bokeh would
help though. Good bokeh gives a smoother blur, bad bokeh makes a
blurred background look horrible. You can't change the bokeh though, it
all depends on the lens.
Phil Cook
>stemc Š wrote:
>
>> Well, being out of focus is a technical issue, but increasing or
>> decreasing the depth of field won't help.
>
>Well decreasing the DOF will put them more out of focus but that in
>itself may not make them look any less distracting. Good bokeh would
>help though. Good bokeh gives a smoother blur, bad bokeh makes a
>blurred background look horrible. You can't change the bokeh though, it
>all depends on the lens.
The best fix in this case would be a change in viewpoint, or a
portable background.
http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_035.jpg
stemc ©
| On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:59:12 +0100, stemc Š wrote:
|
| >| The one of the yellow iris has too little DOF so little is in focus it
| >| looks like the whole thing is out of focus, same goes for the bog
| >| asphodel.
| >
| >You'll have to forgive me, I'm not a flower person, so I don't know which
| >images you are referring to.
|
| Iris http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_051.jpg
Well I think this one is just out of focus (assuming that Icarus wanted the
yellow parts to be in focus), so wasn't really a DOF problem.
| Bog Asphodel http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_043.jpg
And the same from me again as above - if you look in the background, there
is plenty of DOP.
| >| The yew berries have distracting out of focus leaves in
| >| front of them.
| >
| >I think I know which berries you mean.
|
| These http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_020.jpg ?
No, I thought you meant this one:
http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_012.jpg Actually, the one you
were referring to looks like it has been a screen grab from a video
recorder? Is it Icarus? If so, that would explain why some are out of
focus. Saying that though, I've browsed through your website and there's
plenty of good sharp shots there.
| >Many of my flower shots have had
| >leaves distract like this once I've uploaded them to my PC. I never seem
to
| >spot them in the view finder though...
|
| Taking time to look at the taking phase is all important.
True.
| >| There is too much detail in the background of the
| >| teasel, despite it being out of focus it distracts.
| >
| >Well, being out of focus is a technical issue, but increasing or
decreasing
| >the depth of field won't help.
| >
| >| Looking again I'd
| >| say the photos as a whole were good snaps rather than crafted
| >| photographs.
| >
| >Well, you'd know all about these wouldn't you? ;-)
|
| OK then have a look at my site
I already have, that's why I made the comment above!!! ;-) ...didn't you
see my wink above though, I was just joking!!! ;-) ;-) ;-)
| not many flower photos on there
| though
I didn't see any I'm afraid.
| Say what you like
I'm just joking Phil, relax my friend! ;-)
| I know Mr. Dainty thinks they are crap :-)
| Some pictures on there are snaps, some have taken a lot of effort in
| the taking and processing in PS. http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk
Yes, some nice photos there, well done.
I particularly enjoyed this one, though I understand that you probably never
took it yourself: http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/Feb04/me-hourn.jpg
But also enjoyed these ones:
http://mysite.freeserve.com/phil_spix/Oct03/food.jpg A bit out of focus,
but nice composition!
http://mysite.freeserve.com/phil_spix/Oct03/tnf-tent.jpg Nice one!
http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/Feb04/hiding.jpg I've got a shot
similar to this from Malham.
;-) ;-) ;-)
| >Seriously though, you do
| >like to critique, so why not join Photosig.com or Usefilm.com?
|
| The OP asked for comments. I'm happy to oblige.
I know the OP asked for comments, but that's not what I was saying. I was
just observing that you often give critiques to photos, and as far as I
know, you don't use websites such as Photosig or Usefilm. So I was just
suggesting these websites as you might like them, if you hadn't looked at
them already.
| --
| Phil Cook
Ste
stemc ©
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c5uv6n$8qh$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
| stemc Š wrote:
|
| > Well, being out of focus is a technical issue, but increasing or
| > decreasing the depth of field won't help.
|
| Well decreasing the DOF will put them more out of focus but that in
| itself may not make them look any less distracting.
Yes, it's either in focus or not. You don't get points for being close or
closer (unless being out of focus was an effect which was desired), so
that's why I said DOF doesn't help (IMO).
| Good bokeh would
| help though. Good bokeh gives a smoother blur, bad bokeh makes a
| blurred background look horrible. You can't change the bokeh though, it
| all depends on the lens.
I've had both good and bad bokeh from my Fuji and Canon digital cameras, so
I reckon it must also depend on the conditions etc.
| Paul
Ste
Michael S
True, although trial and error is better, as it leads to 'experience'.
Better to get some flowers from a florist and play around to your
hearts content at home. Even easier for those with digital. I don't
bother with DOF preview anymore as I *know* what my DOF is going to be
at various apertures from 'experience'.
> I've never got on with DOF previews. Usually the image is too dark to
> clearly see what's in focus anyway. Still good to have the option but
> not easy to use.
With DOF, the viewfinder is only really so dark as to be useless when
using a small aperture (f16 to f32), in which case DOF isn't *as*
critical, as the DOF is much wider. With floral portraits and macro
it is generally more aesthetically pleasing to have a narrow DOF (as
discussed in this thread - having a background OOF removes
distractions that take the eye away from the main subject) - the large
aperture required lets plenty of light in, so the viewfinder is
darkened considerably when using a DOF preview feature.
For example, for floral portraits and macro I generally use apertures
from f2.8 to f5.6 (f8 occasionally) - at these apertures the change in
brightness of the viewfinder when using DOF preview is so small as to
be negligible.
As for the OP's photos... they certainly won't win any awards (and I'm
sure the OP knows that), but they are happy record shots of a pleasant
day out, and my thanks to the OP for sharing them!
Cheers,
Michael S
The Reids
>Comments welcome.
I would like to see the page less cluttered with stuff other than
the photos to give a strong initial impact.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale picture gallery
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/waspics.htm"
(see website for email)
Phil Cook
>| OK then have a look at my site
>| not many flower photos on there
>| though
>
>I didn't see any I'm afraid.
There are a couple, but they are flowers in the landscape.
http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/blumtns/381ae564.jpg
http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/blumtns/381ae579.jpg
>| Say what you like
>
>I'm just joking Phil, relax my friend! ;-)
I know you are, and I'm deadly serious!
>
>| I know Mr. Dainty thinks they are crap :-)
>| Some pictures on there are snaps, some have taken a lot of effort in
>| the taking and processing in PS. http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk
>
>Yes, some nice photos there, well done.
>
>I particularly enjoyed this one, though I understand that you probably never
>took it yourself: http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/Feb04/me-hourn.jpg
Ah but I did, I cart a lightweight tripod about with me. Actually that
is one of my better self portraits, they usually come out terrible.
>
>But also enjoyed these ones:
>
>http://mysite.freeserve.com/phil_spix/Oct03/food.jpg A bit out of focus,
>but nice composition!
That was a snap. I think the autofocus failed due to dim light, more
dark than light.
>http://mysite.freeserve.com/phil_spix/Oct03/tnf-tent.jpg Nice one!
Another snap.
>http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/Feb04/hiding.jpg I've got a shot
>similar to this from Malham.
Carefully crafted photograph.
Icarus
Thanks for the compliments. I must say it is great the postive replies
and critism I have had from everyone.
My favourite photo from Formby Point is :-
http://y2u.co.uk/%26002_Images/Formby%20Point/Formby_Point_25.jpg
From Sefton Palm House is :-
http://y2u.co.uk/%26002_Images/Sefton%20Park%20Palm%20House/Palm_House_16.jpg
I explain my cameras and other photos on :-
http://y2u.co.uk/%26002_Images/Photos%2001.htm
Peace
Icarus
"stemc Š" <s...@sm9sm9.co.uk> wrote in message news:<4082fa68$0$3915$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>...
Icarus
Thanks for your comments.
The problem as I see it is that I do not take time with my
photography. It is much a hit and miss affair with me. I tend to take
photos on the fly.
I will have to get a good quality tripod to make sure of better focus
and a bigger mega pixel camera and one where I can control depth of
field.
I do not pretend the photos are top quality but saying that I enjoy
taking them and many people appear to have had some pleasure looking
at some of the beautiful wild flowers of England.
No I did not use a screen grab from a video :-)
Peace
Icarus
---------------------------------------------------
http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_051.jpg
http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_043.jpg
http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_020.jpg
http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_012.jpg
http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/Feb04/me-hourn.jpg
http://mysite.freeserve.com/phil_spix/Oct03/food.jpg
ttp://mysite.freeserve.com/phil_spix/Oct03/tnf-tent.jpg
http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/Feb04/hiding.jpg
W. D. Grey
<john0...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>I will have to get a good quality tripod to make sure of better focus
>and a bigger mega pixel camera and one where I can control depth of
>field.
Something to consider - even with the mostest sturdiestest tripod in the
world - watch out for the plants moving in the breeze :-)
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> I've had both good and bad bokeh from my Fuji and Canon digital
> cameras, so I reckon it must also depend on the conditions etc.
I thought it was a fixed characterisic of the lens, but maybe it changes
with different zoom lengths.
Paul Saunders
> I don't
> bother with DOF preview anymore as I *know* what my DOF is going to be
> at various apertures from 'experience'.
Easier if you use fixed lenses, not so easy with a zoom.
>> I've never got on with DOF previews. Usually the image is too dark
>> to clearly see what's in focus anyway.
> With DOF, the viewfinder is only really so dark as to be useless when
> using a small aperture (f16 to f32),
That's precisely when I tend to use it.
> in which case DOF isn't *as*
> critical, as the DOF is much wider.
No, that's when it is critical for me, because I need a *huge* DOF, for
example trying to get a rock or flower a few inches away in focus with a
distant mountain behind.
stemc ©
| On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:30:04 +0100, stemc Š wrote:
|
| >| OK then have a look at my site
| >| not many flower photos on there
| >| though
| >
| >I didn't see any I'm afraid.
|
| There are a couple, but they are flowers in the landscape.
|
| http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/blumtns/381ae564.jpg
| http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/blumtns/381ae579.jpg
Yes, more landscape shots than flower shots, so that's why I never spotted
them. Not one to be a spoil sport, here's a few of my flower snaps for you
to get your teeth into...
http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/bluebells.jpg
I took this one in my front garden last night. I like the composition of
this image, except it was getting dark and I wish I had went in the house to
get my flash; as I didn't get as fast a shutter speed as I would have liked,
and the stem looks a bit dark. Also, this is a prime example of why you
should use a big aperture, to reduce the distractions in the background. I
actually used the smallest aperture I could for the focal length (f3.0), but
digital cameras with fixed lenses don't blur it as good as film cameras or
DSLR's.
http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/flowerbee.jpg
I've always liked this one because it was one of those chance opportunities
that you don't see every day.
| >| Say what you like
| >
| >I'm just joking Phil, relax my friend! ;-)
|
| I know you are, and I'm deadly serious!
Oooh! :-)
| >| I know Mr. Dainty thinks they are crap :-)
| >| Some pictures on there are snaps, some have taken a lot of effort in
| >| the taking and processing in PS. http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk
| >
| >Yes, some nice photos there, well done.
| >
| >I particularly enjoyed this one, though I understand that you probably
never
| >took it yourself: http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/Feb04/me-hourn.jpg
|
| Ah but I did, I cart a lightweight tripod about with me. Actually that
| is one of my better self portraits, they usually come out terrible.
Well I pass the credit straight back to yourself! ;-)
| >But also enjoyed these ones:
| >
| >http://mysite.freeserve.com/phil_spix/Oct03/food.jpg A bit out of focus,
| >but nice composition!
|
| That was a snap. I think the autofocus failed due to dim light, more
| dark than light.
I was just joking when I picked out that one! ;-)
| >http://mysite.freeserve.com/phil_spix/Oct03/tnf-tent.jpg Nice one!
|
| Another snap.
;-)
| >http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/Feb04/hiding.jpg I've got a shot
| >similar to this from Malham.
|
| Carefully crafted photograph.
I think you've got some excellent shots on your webiste, but for the
purposes of joking about, I never picked them out in my post, as you've
probably gathered! ;-) I picked the above photo out because it reminded me
slightly of one of my snaps, whilst I was in Malham last year, except I was
zoomed in a bit more: http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/malham.jpg
| --
| Phil Cook
Ste
stemc ©
| stemc Š wrote:
|
| > I've had both good and bad bokeh from my Fuji and Canon digital
| > cameras, so I reckon it must also depend on the conditions etc.
|
| I thought it was a fixed characterisic of the lens, but maybe it changes
| with different zoom lengths.
|
| Paul
I'll try and dig out some examples for you some time Paul, and let you know
if there's a pattern.
Ste
stemc ©
No problems, and thanks for sharing.
My preferred photo from Formby Point is this one:
http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Formby%20Point/Formby_Point_10.jpg
And I agree with your favourite image from the Palm House, as I've just
replied in your latest post.
I've got loads of images from Formby Point, so I will have to share them
some time. Perhaps I will do a trip report on one of the many walks there,
and combine this with some images.
Take care,
Ste
"Icarus" <john0...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:97d9e678.04041...@posting.google.com...
| Ste
|
| Thanks for the compliments. I must say it is great the postive replies
| and critism I have had from everyone.
|
| My favourite photo from Formby Point is :-
|
| http://y2u.co.uk/%26002_Images/Formby%20Point/Formby_Point_25.jpg
|
| From Sefton Palm House is :-
|
|
http://y2u.co.uk/%26002_Images/Sefton%20Park%20Palm%20House/Palm_House_16.jpg
|
| I explain my cameras and other photos on :-
|
| http://y2u.co.uk/%26002_Images/Photos%2001.htm
|
| Peace
|
| Icarus
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "stemc ©" <s...@sm9sm9.co.uk> wrote in message
stemc ©
No problems for any comments. I'm also guilty of not taking time with my
photography, and lately, I've not done much at all (apart from in the front
garden!).
I'd definitely recommend a better quality camera. I use a Canon G5, which
I'm happy with. If you can afford it, look at one of the new 8 megapixel
offerings, or even a D-SLR (Canon EOS 10D springs to mind).
Sorry for suggesting you took a screen grab! ;-) How do you process your
images when they are on your computer? The quality of some of them looks a
bit ropey, so I'm sure this can be improved, so people can enjoy them even
more. Do you use Photoshop at all? I don't edit my images much in there,
apart from adjusting the levels, saturation, resizing, and adding a bit of
unsharp mask. It makes all the difference though.
Take care,
Ste
"Icarus" <john0...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:97d9e678.04041...@posting.google.com...
Icarus
I would love a new Canon 8 megapixel camera, but the cost. A meduim
format camera with a digital back is my dream, especially for
landscapes.
The reason the picture quality is poor is because I have to restrict
image size because of bandwidth restrictions. If anyone wants a hi-res
image all they have to is ask, the quality is much better.
I use ULEAD to manipulate the images.
And thanks all for your comments and suggestions
Peace
Icarus
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"stemc ©" <s...@sm9sm9.co.uk> wrote in message news:<408ba968$0$31691$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>...
stemc ©
I know what you mean about the cost of these cameras, I also wish I could
afford one right now.
I've just looked at a few of the pages and didn't think it was poor to be
honest. I think I must have read other comments without thinking for
myself. Most of them are good, so I take back the ropey comment! :-)
I've never used any of the Ulead products, but I think Photoshop is
excellent of course! ;-)
Adios amigo,
Ste
"Icarus" <john0...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:97d9e678.04042...@posting.google.com...
Michael S
> > using a small aperture (f16 to f32),
>
> That's precisely when I tend to use it.
>
> > in which case DOF isn't *as*
> > critical, as the DOF is much wider.
>
> No, that's when it is critical for me, because I need a *huge* DOF, for
> example trying to get a rock or flower a few inches away in focus with a
> distant mountain behind.
>
> Paul
Well just focus on the foreground rock and set the minimum aperture
available (f22 or f32). That will usually send the DoF to infinity -
the scale on your lens will confirm this. Or use hyperfocal focusing
to focus slightly beyond the foreground rock if DoF doesn't extend to
infinity.
In situations where you want (for example) a foreground rock and a
distant mountain to be in focus, DoF is critical in the sense that you
don't want the mountain to be OOF when you focus on the foreground
rock, but setting the camera to achieve this is about as simple as it
gets! Like I said above, it's just a case of setting a minimum
aperture. DoF would only become a 'complex' issue if you *didn't*
want the background mountain in focus - in which case the choice of
aperture would depend on how OOF you wanted the mountain to be
(totally blurred beyond recognition, only slightly blurred so it is
still obviously a mountain but doesn't take attention away from the
rock etc. etc.) - in which case DoF preview may be of use.
If you want pretty much everything in focus from front to back then
it's just a case of setting aperure to f22 (or f32 if your lens can).
And if minimum aperture doesn't get it all in focus then that's just
tough, the shot ain't gonna happen!
I don't recall anybody I know ever using DoF preview on a minimum
aperture, max DoF landscape image.
Regards,
Michael S
Paul Saunders
>>> With DOF, the viewfinder is only really so dark as to be useless
>>> when using a small aperture (f16 to f32),
>>
>> That's precisely when I tend to use it.
>>
>>> in which case DOF isn't *as*
>>> critical, as the DOF is much wider.
>>
>> No, that's when it is critical for me, because I need a *huge* DOF,
>> for example trying to get a rock or flower a few inches away in
>> focus with a distant mountain behind.
>
> Well just focus on the foreground rock and set the minimum aperture
> available (f22 or f32). That will usually send the DoF to infinity -
You're probably thinking of a fairly normal composition, I'm thinking of
when the camera is *extremely* close to the foreground object. I've had
situations when I couldn't get both in focus, even at f32. So you can
imagine how close I'm talking about.
> the scale on your lens will confirm this.
But zoom lenses rarely have scales, or at least not very useful ones.
> Or use hyperfocal focusing
> to focus slightly beyond the foreground rock if DoF doesn't extend to
> infinity.
I'd certainly prefer that, if I had a scale on the lens, but I'm
thinking of situations where I'm using zooms.
> In situations where you want (for example) a foreground rock and a
> distant mountain to be in focus, DoF is critical in the sense that you
> don't want the mountain to be OOF when you focus on the foreground
> rock, but setting the camera to achieve this is about as simple as it
> gets! Like I said above, it's just a case of setting a minimum
> aperture.
Only if it's a *normal* photograph. I was talking about *extreme* close
ups.
> DoF would only become a 'complex' issue if you *didn't*
> want the background mountain in focus - in which case the choice of
> aperture would depend on how OOF you wanted the mountain to be
> (totally blurred beyond recognition, only slightly blurred so it is
> still obviously a mountain but doesn't take attention away from the
> rock etc. etc.) - in which case DoF preview may be of use.
True. I'm tending to take more longer focal length shots these days so
DOF is an issue more often.
> If you want pretty much everything in focus from front to back then
> it's just a case of setting aperure to f22 (or f32 if your lens can).
> And if minimum aperture doesn't get it all in focus then that's just
> tough, the shot ain't gonna happen!
As I've discovered a few times.
> I don't recall anybody I know ever using DoF preview on a minimum
> aperture, max DoF landscape image.
Well now you do! :-)
Mark South
news:r5ccb0top7kth1fca...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:12:00 +0100, "Paul Saunders"
> <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >You're probably thinking of a fairly normal composition, I'm thinking of
> >when the camera is *extremely* close to the foreground object. I've had
> >situations when I couldn't get both in focus, even at f32. So you can
> >imagine how close I'm talking about.
>
> question alert!! ;-)
I'm not Paul, but I will be playing him on WebTV :-)
> Er forgive my silly question, but itsn't that what the macro setting
> is all about?
That's what it's for, but it's not magic, ie it's still subject to laws of
physics.
> As seen here http://thenmc.org.uk/pages/gallery/album02 distance to
> extremely funky looking algae (or whatever they were) about 10mm.. the
> height of the "stalks" seen is only 4-8mm
That's impressive.
> Soz, I'm sure you've got it covered but I had to ask ;-) plus I love
> those photies... quite surreal.
The thing is that the actual depth of field fraction you can obtain is limited
by the actual focal length (not the 35mm equivalent so beloved of digital camera
manufacturers). Paul is probably talking about his EOS 300D.
I can make the explanation longer but you would not thank me and I take enough
anti-photo flames here as it is :-)
--
"To ... just not care that there are naked triathletes running
across your lawn, that's just a waste of exhibitionism."
- Kibo, in alt.religion.kibology
Phil Cook
><Steve Orrell> wrote in message
>news:r5ccb0top7kth1fca...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:12:00 +0100, "Paul Saunders"
>> <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >You're probably thinking of a fairly normal composition, I'm thinking of
>> >when the camera is *extremely* close to the foreground object. I've had
>> >situations when I couldn't get both in focus, even at f32. So you can
>> >imagine how close I'm talking about.
>> Er forgive my silly question, but itsn't that what the macro setting
>> is all about?
>
>That's what it's for, but it's not magic, ie it's still subject to laws of
>physics.
The Macro setting on a lens is to enable it to focus on very close
objects. This is normaly done at the expense of distant focus, you
have to take it off macro to focus at infinity. There are macro lenses
out there for 35mm SLRs that continuously focus from a few inches to
infinity but as you say Mark it isn't magic and the laws of physics
mean it can be impossible to obtain DOF from a few inches to infinity
unless you resort to a tilt-shift lens.
>The thing is that the actual depth of field fraction you can obtain is limited
>by the actual focal length (not the 35mm equivalent so beloved of digital camera
>manufacturers). Paul is probably talking about his EOS 300D.
But the circle of confusion is differently sized for differing film or
sensor formats so in effect the lens focal length 35mm equivalent.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
95/284 5/219 c.100/300 (>900m with drop>100m )
Paul Saunders
> The thing is that the actual depth of field fraction you can obtain
> is limited by the actual focal length (not the 35mm equivalent so
> beloved of digital camera manufacturers). Paul is probably talking
> about his EOS 300D.
No, I was talking about my film camera, thinking of a specific situation
many years ago where I photographed a fern right in front of the camera
with a waterfall in the distance behind. I couldn't get them both in
focus,
Depth of field with the 300D is better than with a film camera since my
"29mm equivalent" is really an 18mm.
Paul Saunders
> the laws of physics
> mean it can be impossible to obtain DOF from a few inches to infinity
> unless you resort to a tilt-shift lens.
I'm sure I've seen a pic on the internet showing a flower a few inches
in front of the camera in perfect focus with a distant mountain in the
background. It was taken with an extreme wide angle lens, can't
remember how wide, may have been 15mm or 16mm.
>> The thing is that the actual depth of field fraction you can obtain
>> is limited by the actual focal length (not the 35mm equivalent so
>> beloved of digital camera manufacturers). Paul is probably talking
>> about his EOS 300D.
>
> But the circle of confusion is differently sized for differing film or
> sensor formats so in effect the lens focal length 35mm equivalent.
Actually Phil, I don't think it is. AIUI the focal length determines
the depth of field, irrepespective of the size of film. For example, my
6x6 camera has a 75mm lens which is equivalent to a standard lens, but
has shallower depth of field. Even more extreme, the 90mm lens on my
6x9 camera is equivalent to roughly a 35mm wide angle but has a very
shallow depth of field, since it would be a medium telephoto on a 35mm
camera. To get a decent DOF out of it I have to stop it right down (it
goes down to f45) and I have the option of resorting to camera back
movements if necessary.
Applying this logic in reverse, the smaller sensor size means more DOF
for the focal length equivalent, or to put it another way, the same DOF
that you'd expect for the actual focal length. As another example, the
300mm lens I borrowed recently was equivalent to a 480mm but the DOF
definitely wasn't as shallow as a 480mm would be.
Mark South
To simplify the discussion: longer focal length lenses have physically larger
circles of confusion away from the point of focus, and angle of view means that
larger formats have longer focal length lenses providing the same angle of view.
Maximal depth of field means a short focal length lens on a small format.
Unless you want me to explain scheimpflug movements for view cameras :-)
--
-- M.