Autumn Flowers in Letham Glen
View Smaller Image
|
|
yvonne
Registered: August 2008
Posts: 431
|
|
Wed October 15, 2008 1:18pm
|
|
|
Geoff - Im confused! Where does the rating come from if no comments posted?
|
|
Kev
Registered: February 2008
Posts: 1,496
|
|
Wed October 15, 2008 6:38pm
|
Rating: 8.00
|
|
Yvonne - technically this is not a macro shot. It is merely a close-up.
Macro is using a 1:1 ratio lens which allows the photographer to get much closer than this - primarily used for insects, plant staimens, coins, stamps, and fine detail on jewelry items, etc.
However, this photo of the St Johns Wart flower is pretty good. You've finally waited for a nice cloudy day and therefore the saturation & colour balance, and luminosity are all in the correct zone.
I dunno why you've uploaded such a large file this time tho...1500 pix (on longest side) is much better - coz when one chooses the larger size it's a perfect viewing format. This one is way too big.
Once again - I'd use a smaller aperture on a flower like this...coz, it's quite deep and has a lot of critical detail points.
|
|
yvonne
Registered: August 2008
Posts: 431
|
|
Wed October 15, 2008 6:57pm
|
|
|
Ye Gods! I'm at the "pack up and throw in the towel!" stage! I've finally lost the plot - please explain to me why the 70-300mm lens was sold to me as Macro. I will be using the original lens 18-55mm in future until I can get my hands on a Tamron 90. Aperture on this one was f/22 but I guess you think I should have gone smaller?
|
|
Kev
Registered: February 2008
Posts: 1,496
|
|
Wed October 15, 2008 7:46pm
|
|
|
The aperture info shows f/8 on this photo.
Which lens were you using...include a link to the web info.
All I'm saying is that - this photo - is technically not a macro shot...merely a closeup (and not even that close)...and doesn't require a macro lens.
Many of my flower shots are closer than this example - taken with a 17-55mm 2.8 lens.
|
|
geofflaw
Site Admin
Registered: December 2007
Posts: 1,225
|
|
Wed October 15, 2008 7:50pm
|
Rating: 8.00
|
|
It says aperture f8 in the EXIF information for this shot. (To see the EXIF info click on the camera symbol) The word macro has been loosely used for all kinds of close-up shots by lens manufacturers. Kev is right, strictly speaking a macro shot is one where the frame of the shot is less than or equal to the size of the sensor. Which means you would be hard pushed to get the whole of a fly into the shot. But when that definition was made the area of the film was a lot bigger than modern sensors.
You will find the depth of field gets thinner as you increase the focal length of the lens, at a given aperture of course. Which is why longer lenses have smaller aperture settings, going up to f32 or higher. So you would get better DOF out of you 18-55mm. If you are shooting inanimate objects, where you don't have to worry about disturbing them by getting too close, a shorter lens would be a better choice.
|
|
geofflaw
Site Admin
Registered: December 2007
Posts: 1,225
|
|
Wed October 15, 2008 7:51pm
|
|
|
You beat me to it Kev, posted while I was writing.
|
|
Kev
Registered: February 2008
Posts: 1,496
|
|
Wed October 15, 2008 8:49pm
|
|
|
Yvonne - I think there's often some confusion between "macro" and "closeup" shots.
With regard to flower photos - a real macro lens is seldom ever required - unless one is shooting extremely closeup pics of the staimens, etc.
A decent, regular lens (ie: 50mm prime, or like my 17-55mm zoom)...will allow a minimum focus of around 1.3 feet (from the camera sensor...not the lens end)...which is more than adequately close enought to take 99% of desired flower shots.
Even for my really close flower pics - I'm never closer than say about 18 inches from the plant. Otherwise, it would just be too close, and I wouldn't be able to get the whole flower or plant in the frame.
A true macro shot is seldom the 'entire' subject...but most often just a part of it.
A while back I considered spending the $1000 or so for a decent macro lens (like the Nikkor 105mm VR Micro - Nikon calls macro...micro, for some odd reason)....however, I realized that I just don't need a lens like that...simply because I don't DO insects, bugs, etc...and probably won't shoot staimen pics very often either.
Personally, I wouldn't invest in a 'real' macro lens - unless I was particularly interested in taking a lot of extremely close, fine detailed subject shots.
|
|
yvonne
Registered: August 2008
Posts: 431
|
|
Wed October 15, 2008 9:00pm
|
|
|
Kev, the lens I used today was Nikon 18-55mm. The other lens I have is 70-300mm. However, when using the 18-55, if I don't get up close, the shots appear too distant with not enough of the fine detail that I'm looking for.....?
|
|
Kev
Registered: February 2008
Posts: 1,496
|
|
Wed October 15, 2008 9:23pm
|
|
|
Like I said....with the 18-55mm...you can get to about 1.3 feet from the flower (sensor to flower)....so the actual lens-end is approx 10 inches or so from the flower...
Then zoomed to 55mm in...you will be plenty close enough.
|
|
yvonne
Registered: August 2008
Posts: 431
|
|
Wed October 15, 2008 10:33pm
|
|
|
OK, thanks a lot guys for all this info - I'll look at that next time . All comments appreciated. 
|
|
honez
Registered: August 2008
Posts: 248
|
|
Thu October 16, 2008 12:44am
|
|
|
Re Yvonne's comment "Im confused! Where does the rating come from if no comments posted?"
That'd be me. I rated it but didn't leave a comment.
|
|
Ralitza
Registered: October 2008
Posts: 105
|
|
Thu October 16, 2008 5:07pm
|
|
|
Yvonne, I use the same lens as yours and still struggle to get the flower shots right (and not only flower shots..) I find the comments for your pictures very useful, hope you don't mind 
I like this picture.. Very pleasant colours and the flower is beutiful!
|
|
yvonne
Registered: August 2008
Posts: 431
|
|
Thu October 16, 2008 9:40pm
|
|
|
Thanks Raliza, and of course, feel free to benfit from all the comments everyone has made - all very constructive and positive. I'm reassured that someone else is frustrated with the close-up shots but, after this "tutorial", I'm sure we can get it right! Cheers everyone! 
|
|
Kev
Registered: February 2008
Posts: 1,496
|
|
Sat October 18, 2008 8:22am
|
|
|
I understand your frustration...
Yvonne - I know that when folks start off in photography it's really hard not to get a bad case of GAS (gear aquisition syndrome ...what with all the different lenses out there, etc...However, I really think it's important to buy only one VERY GOOD quality standard lens to begin with, get a decent tripod...learn how to use it, and master the basics of how to take good pics - before then buying the other various 70-300mm zooms, or whatever.
IF one can take great shots with a 17-55mm and tripod...then the same results will follow with any other lens that is aquired later on.
It's composition, exposure, understanding the camera and learning the basic fundamentals that are more important than the actual gear itself.
A tripod is a must - I would get one - before considering any other piece of equipment. It will allow you to take pictures that are just not possible hand-held.
KEV
|
|
yvonne
Registered: August 2008
Posts: 431
|
|
Sun October 19, 2008 8:14pm
|
|
|
Thanks, Kev - no sooner said, than done! Took delivery of decent Slix tripod on Friday - other lightweight one was just no good! Discovered via telephone calls and group session with Mark and Fiona that zoom lens switches were not set (doh!!!) hence my frustration. So, I had a EUREKA moment and all is right with the world! I'm taking my foot of the pedal and working slowly and methodically to get to grips with the fundamentals. Really appreciate the support and constructive critiscism, keep it coming!
|
|
|
|
|
| Users |
582 |
| Photos |
2,916 |
| Comments |
4,223 |
| Views |
3,244,417 |
| Disk Space |
2,487.4mb |
|
|
| Home | Tutorials
| Community Forum
| Blog
| Photo Quiz |
