Flowers

Anouilh

My interest in photography has been encouraged by a love of flowers and botany.

Even when choosing a new lens, the apo macro system in Sigma was the deciding factor.

Are there many flower experts here?

Julie Ardery has a very varied site called the
Human Flower Project.

Well worth a look.

Anouilh

It's worth mentioning that if you join Frappr there is a photo upload allowance along with the option to make maps to embed on one's blog.

Here's and example:

http://www.frappr.com/?a=viewphoto&id=2792121&pid=7187923&myphotos=1

Since many Frappr members organise themselves according to interests and themes, it's a useful way to see a wide variety of photographic work.

melekalikimaka

flowers and swans....two area i hope never to need go into.....shudder

DaireQuinlan

nothing wrong with flowers ...



or swans ...



in moderation of course

Morrisseeee

Here's two I was happy with, or at least I found interesting, ie. especially the light : C&C welcome so that I may improve my flower shots:

Anouilh

There's a bit of a knack in capturing the way light bounces off each species. This is often what makes one flower very different from another and is worth studying.

I like the golden flowers very much. Just angling the camera along the petals, rather than trying to present the flower simply for shape and position in relation to other flowers will bring some differences.

Photographing flowers after rain is one way of getting some very beautiful images.

Anouilh

The black and white wilted rudbeckia is very good.

These "momento mori" type images used to be very fashionable.

sheesh

melekalikimaka wrote: »

flowers and swans....two area i hope never to need go into.....shudder

now now flower macros can be interesting as they sometimes show up structures in the plants that are not obvious to the naked eye. I agree with you on the swan issue they are the sunset of the avian world (you really only shoot them when you have nothing else to photograph). there are some nice photos of swans and sunsets but they tend to get pretty boring my flickr is full of them.

DaireQuinlan

Anouilh wrote: »

The black and white wilted rudbeckia is very good.

These "momento mori" type images used to be very fashionable.

Rudbeckia eh ? Duly tagged My parents would of course probably know what these are, For a while when I was a kid every plant in our garden was tagged with ID. I didn't find it odd at the time ...

In my case I couldn't care less. I just shoot them because they catch my eye for whatever reason. It simply wouldn't do to become a DOCUMENTARY photographer or something :-)

@morrisseeee nice shots, the gradient of shade across the petals of the flower is quite lovely.

Morrisseeee

Thanks, It was taken with the 'mighty' humble 14-42mm lens at 42mm, ie. when the lens is at 42mm it seems to produce lovely/interesting macros !

Anouilh

Tips on focal length might be shared?

The kit lens with the Canon EOS 400D takes good flower shots and it is not as soft as many of the critics claim.

F11 upwards improves the work considerably.

Anouilh

This could be a thread for

"A Flower a Day".

mikeanywhere

I went through a flower phase when I got my 150mm macro lens. The first shot was taken using a macro, the rest were with my 24-70. I have tons more but I wont bore you with them lol

PaulieC

I like flower macro photography...there's so much to see up close that is generally not appreciated from afar.

bovril

I have the Sigma 105 macro and have taken quite a few flower shots. I'm actually heading over to Keukenhof end of March this year for the Tulips.





Oh and if you're looking for some AMAZING flower macros look no further than Elven.

what to do?

as far as I know - those sigma APO zoom lenses are not proper macro lenses at all. - certainly the one i have isn't a proper macro lens anyway. (70-300 'macro')

a proper macro should have a magnification of 1:1 i think - whereas the 'macro' lens i have is about 1:3.5 or maybe even 1:4.5

Anouilh

Sometimes a welcome visitor can liven things up.http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/2483442107/

For anybody interested in the technicalities of using the macro feature in the Sigma DG apo macro, 70-300mm, I discussed this quite a bit with Wishiwerebaking on my Flickr site in Spring and early Summer, when the light levels for flower macros are very good.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/photographedublin/?page=12

elven

*blushes*

I don't care about whether my macros are 1:1 or not, though... macro seems to be a label that just gets applied randomly to close flower shots.

I think flowers have character and it's only when you get in close that you start to see it. I think good flower photography shows you something of that character, so that you appreciate looking at the picture rather than looking at the flower itself.

Here's a couple oldies i dug out of the archives, they might be a bit dusty

Anouilh

What lens do you use, Elven.

Macro covers a wide range of magnified images.

This is my lens:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3303&navigator=3

It helps to use a tripod.

elven

I use the canon 100mm f2.8, usually wide open.

Tripods ftl. I lose my mojo if i'm stuck with one.

Anouilh

Pbase is a good place to compare and contrast.

This gives random photos taken with the Sigma:

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/70-300_45-56_apo_dg_macro

This photographer has a remarkable gallery using the Canon:

http://www.pbase.com/catson/canon_100mm_f28_macro

The lenses are very different.

DaireQuinlan

Anouilh wrote: »

What lens do you use, Elven.

Macro covers a wide range of magnified images.

This is my lens:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3303&navigator=3

It helps to use a tripod.

welll, technically macro is anything 1:1 and greater. The term is widely abused though, even by lens manufacturers who seem to bung it onto any old lens that can focus closer than 6 feet (yes I'm looking at you, sigma ... )

Anouilh

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

welll, technically macro is anything 1:1 and greater. The term is widely abused though, even by lens manufacturers who seem to bung it onto any old lens that can focus closer than 6 feet (yes I'm looking at you, sigma ... )

Guilty, as charged...

elven

Of course the two lenses are very different, one's a prime and one's a zoom, and one only goes to f4.5...

I'll use whatever lens i have in my hands tbh, given that it can open up to something like f2.8. I likes my candy floss bokeh The 135 f2 is looovely for the smooth glowy oof bits though, and it isn't a 'macro' lens.

ike

Love the crocosmia elven! The thing i like about flowers and plants it that they're always around and you don't have to get travel far to come across something interesting. Its nice to find an interesting angle or as Anouilh says the occasional visitor. I'm stuck on the Canon EF-s 60mm often wonder if I shouls have gone the extra 100 quid or so and got the 100mm

Anouilh

I love B&W flower photography.

Just found a photo taken with my Fuji Finepix before it collapsed:

DaireQuinlan

Anouilh wrote: »

I love B&W flower photography.

Excellent :-) , here's another couple for you so ...

Anouilh

They are fabulous.

Guidance on how you made them would be welcome, if you could find a moment to share.

Anouilh

what to do? wrote: »

as far as I know - those sigma APO zoom lenses are not proper macro lenses at all. - certainly the one i have isn't a proper macro lens anyway. (70-300 'macro')

a proper macro should have a magnification of 1:1 i think - whereas the 'macro' lens i have is about 1:3.5 or maybe even 1:4.5

Extension tubes are the answer:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=266596&page=6

DaireQuinlan

Anouilh wrote: »

They are fabulous.

Guidance on how you made them would be welcome, if you could find a moment to share.

well they were shot using my F4 with a shiny new SB-26 I'd just acquired (flash). Hence the B&W, because I could dev it myself quite quickly. Delta 400 developed in ilfosol. From the time they were taken I would say that I took them almost certainly with my 50mm, but they could be using an extension tube or a macro bellows, I can't remember which. Most likely the extension tube though. Much more convenient ...

not much more too say. I think I may have misted the rose before taking the shot for the water drops though

Anouilh

Excellent ideas there. I didn't need to mist my flowers last Summer. I have a fine collection of rain-drenched blossoms on record, thanks to the poor weather.

It's worth sharing the Hive Mind seach system.

This is what I got by searching for

sooc flowers

http://fiveprime.org/flickr_hvmnd.cgi?search_domain=Tags&textinput=sooc+flowers&search_type=Search+Tags&photo_number=100&photo_type=100&sort=Interestingness&page=1&tag_mode=any

Anouilh

Expensive macro lenses are not always an option.

I bought a 4+ diopter filter last year and enjoyed using it a lot.

Remembering, a year on, how I managed
to make magnified photos without a
true macro lens.

Diopter 4+ is a little gem.

http://shortsights.blogspot.com/2009/01/faux-macro.html#links

I've also placed objects under a magnifying glass and photographed through that fairly successfully.

Anouilh

I found this Italian site by chance. It works as an aggregator for all Flicr photos and presents the images "on black".

Just replace the number of the photo in the bar with the one you want to see:

http://www.33cl.it/photos/photo/2850963695

This may raise issues of copyright with some people?

Flowers often look much more dazzling against a dark background.

Anouilh

elven wrote: »

I use the canon 100mm f2.8, usually wide open.

Tripods ftl. I lose my mojo if i'm stuck with one.

You must have a very steady hand.

I find a tripod is very useful with butterflies on flowers because they have a slight tremor that prevents the image being totally sharp. Then the fluttering parts that are recorded seem alive.

There is a lot of talk about tagging and aggregators at the moment and I thought to share this tip again:
By choosing unusual tags for one's photos, they are more easily found by search engines, for example

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/tags/%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%8D%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%B1/

elven

I have the very opposite of a steady hand... thats' why i can't go below 1/200th. Life sucks.

Anouilh

Perhaps all the Flickr members might like to make some links here to their flower photos.

I found this brilliant essay on insect photography this morning:

http://photo.net/photo/nature/butterfly.html

It links up very nicely with flowers.

stick-dan

Anouilh wrote: »

I love B&W flower photography.

How about selective colouring flower photography?
I like to make them stand out. Guess we all have our tastes.

oshead

I don't usually take photos of flowers even though I'm around them a lot of the time while shooting Insect Macros. After seeing this post I searched Lightroom for some of my images tagged as Flowers. Heres what I found. Most are extreme macros but some closeups too. I've uploaded them to my boards gallery.

I think I will pay more attention to shooting them this summer.

Click the image to go to the gallery.
[URL="https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/95233/70902.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Dave OS

Anouilh

That is really impressive, stick-dan.

Have you a secret formula for the colour contrasts with B&W?

Your lovely galleries remind me of how easy it is to upload photos and arrange them properly for easy viewing in Boards.ie.

I've been thinking about how film still gives some of the best results for flower photography:

http://s83.photobucket.com/albums/j295/kiwirant/Anouilh/?action=view&current=RosaBallerina.jpg

I've listened to professional photographers, now retired, lamenting the lack of sharpness and subtlety that they find in much digital work.

stick-dan

Anouilh wrote: »

That is really impressive, stick-dan.

Have you a secret formula for the colour contrasts with B&W?

Thanks

No I don't have a secret formula. I just know when i take the picture. Don't ask me how I do i just do. The only thing i will say is that too much colour contrasting can get boring and make your work seem one dimensional and make you seem like you're a one trick pony. I've refrained from doing it at the moment just for a short while.It's so easy to fall into the trap of just picking out the main object in the photo and leaving it in colour and then b/w-ing the Background.

That's my story anywho.

Anouilh

Thank you.

stick-dan

Anouilh wrote: »

Thank you.
<--PIC-->

That looks really good. Well done.

stick-dan

@anouilh

use the cone flower one on the site from your signature, i had a look i think the pale pink in the flower against a b/w background would look really well, be interested to see the results.

Anouilh

Thanks again.
I'll do that.

MartMax

Anouilh, don't be afraid to crop. Sharp photo always help. And sometimes less is more.

Anouilh

What a beautiful photo.

You're right about cropping. I do it from time to time for my own use. I don't upload most of my photos to the Internet, but will find some nice crops to share in future.

The detail in your photo is excellent, which probably means a true macro lens. The more I crop and enlarge, the softer some of my work becomes.

I would appreciate any guidance on a good lens to buy if I should want to go into the centre of flowers and pick out finer details, which when, cropped and enlarged in a photo editor, will not lose sharpness.

stick-dan

Anouilh wrote: »

What a beautiful photo.

I would appreciate any guidance on a good lens to buy if I should want to go into the centre of flowers and pick out finer details, which when, cropped and enlarged in a photo editor, will not lose sharpness.

Me too for that matter I'd love to be pointed in the right direction for some macro lenses that are infact true macro.

Anouilh

stick-dan wrote: »

@anouilh

use the cone flower one on the site from your signature, i had a look i think the pale pink in the flower against a b/w background would look really well, be interested to see the results.

After a bit of confusion,

http://shortsights.blogspot.com/2009/01/view-on-black-or-white-either-large-or.html

I added the link to View on Black to my blog:




[/url]

Just a tip; dusk is a very nice time to photograph some flowers.

YourName

Heres my pic, took it on Friday in the Botanic Gardens, Dublin. What do yous think???

Thirdfox

The contrast is rather low - you should adjust the levels to eek out a greater range between light and dark. Either by curves/levels control in photoshop or even just the levels adjustment in Picasa.

Nice bokeh, for me though there's not enough empty space and chopping of the top of the second flower is just a distracting.

Nice picture overall

af_thefragile

One of the first few pictures i took with my slr. Took it with the 18-55 kit lens and well they're not great, but i'm just starting out!