Author Topic: Flower  (Read 17472 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline marindave

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
  • Gender: Male
Flower
« on: October 07, 2009, 10:58:29 PM »
Trichocereus Pachanoi flower shot



A700
45 mm
f8
6 sec
ISO 400

Thanks for looking

Offline Stef.

  • Past Moderator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 11520
    • Stef's photographs
Re: Flower
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2009, 04:32:07 AM »
Well done on this one! The colours are great- no blown out highlights and sharpness seems to be O.K. I am not entirely sure whether the focus is on the outer upper petals or on the middle of the flower? Might be my eyes or screen though. I would probably select the background and blur it a bit as the white dots and scratches on the wall are a bit distracting. But than I am a fan of clean backgrounds and this is certainly a question of taste. The flower is stunning and I think you did a great job with it. Any more ;)
Stef.
Stef.'s photographs

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/15931938@N05/]flickr


"Dream as if you'll live forever- live as if you'll die today"

Offline marindave

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
  • Gender: Male
Re: Flower
« Reply #2 on: October 08, 2009, 10:21:50 PM »
Thanks Stef, that means a lot coming from you.

I tried to focus on the stamens but my eyes aren't that good, and the adjustment in manual focus so slight, and the viewer so small, so I used the outer petals.  Perhaps I need a macro lens, live view might help me too.  This was one of the last of a sequence of 418 shots for a short time lapse video. They only flower for 2 days and are night bloomers, and haven't flowered for me for three years, so I am quite pleased with the 7 flowers I got this year.  The background I don't like but it is where the tiny 12 volt light is. I put tissue paper over the light to diffuse it but the surface is funny. I shall try blurring it.

BTW the second 28 second time lapse video is below. It is hard to believe the loss in resolution from this to youtube. I resized all the images to 1200 pixels, paid $30 for Quicktime Pro, and there seems to be large scale pixelization there which gets another degree worse when uploaded to youtube.  I would like to try it with another program but haven't found one that is free/trial yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EZKmTRAoa4



« Last Edit: October 08, 2009, 10:57:43 PM by marindave »

Offline chappo1

  • Administrator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • ******
  • Posts: 9350
  • Gender: Male
  • real name..... john
    • chappo's doodlings-australian wildlife
Re: Flower
« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2009, 11:55:36 PM »
Hi Dave...until I got a macro I always thought I needed a macro.  Do not get me wrong, it is great to have a good macro but not the most critical factor.
Take a look at the free Combine ZP software and take a few shots moving the focus slightly each time and combine them.  Stef wrote a "how to" somewhere on here but my ability to find old threads is poor...
Very nice shot...john
“Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils."

Hector Berlioz

Offline Stef.

  • Past Moderator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 11520
    • Stef's photographs
Re: Flower
« Reply #4 on: October 09, 2009, 12:29:01 AM »
 I certainly do not want to hijack your thread but what John is saying is correct- you don't need a macro lens but I have to say it makes life sooo much easier. If you shoot regularly macro shots I would start putting money in my piggy bank and buy a dedicated macro lens.



The above image has been shot with a digital compact camera- albeit the Canon G10. It is a combination of 11 images that were stacked and combined into one. John is correct in recommending CombineZM which a a free download from the web. It does IMHO a faster job than Photoshop and works usually very well.

Here is some more explanation about how to stack images:
http://www.dynaxdigital.com/index.php/topic,4197.msg68101.html#msg68101

And here is another example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3467/3231560103_c0da33e0f2_o.jpg

Nevertheless I have to stress again that I absolutely love your image and I am sincerely grateful for you putting up such a rare flower! Thanks a lot again!

BTW- the video is stunning!!!
Stef.
Stef.'s photographs

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/15931938@N05/]flickr


"Dream as if you'll live forever- live as if you'll die today"

Offline winjeel

  • Past Moderator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Gender: Male
  • Gelight
    • japanesephotos
    • JapanesePhotos
    • JapanesePhotos.Asia
Re: Flower
« Reply #5 on: October 09, 2009, 01:07:53 AM »
I hadn't seen that stack from Stef before, it's really nice. With the cactus, the lighting is interesting, but a little bounce (off of a white card) might be nice to fill in the inside-flower area, and a sharp focus on the stamens is my personal preference. Nice flowers, btw. :)
JapanesePhotos.Asia; Some basic photographic how to's.
Sony the200, Minolta 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 70-300mm Gregarious, 100mm 2.8 macro.

Offline marindave

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
  • Gender: Male
Re: Flower
« Reply #6 on: October 09, 2009, 01:15:10 AM »
If I could get that kind of sharpness and clarity I would be one happy camper!  One of the problems I had was that very little movement (maybe 1/4"?) took me from back focus to front focus.  Is there a better way to achieve this, different focal length maybe, so as to have more movement when attempting stacking? 

Offline Stef.

  • Past Moderator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 11520
    • Stef's photographs
Re: Flower
« Reply #7 on: October 09, 2009, 01:22:08 AM »
When I do the stacking I don't even look through the viewfinder at all. Only for the first shot where I focus on the part of the flower the closest to me. You need to try out though in which direction to turn your lens ring so that it focusses first at the front but than towards the back of the flower. Once I have focussed to the front I then just turn the lens ring ever so slightly in the right direction. I keep on doing this until eventually I will look through the viewfinder again and realise I went beyond the furthest point. In Adobe Bridge I then discard the last images where nothing is in focus and combine the others with CombineZM. This works best for me.
Stef.
Stef.'s photographs

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/15931938@N05/]flickr


"Dream as if you'll live forever- live as if you'll die today"

Offline marindave

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
  • Gender: Male
Re: Flower
« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2009, 02:18:49 AM »
OK I went out tried stacking and got one I am pleased by.
 


Although I need more practice, I like the results and will have to experiment more with it. 



Offline panoramix24

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 702
Re: Flower
« Reply #9 on: October 13, 2009, 12:31:48 AM »
I like much better the stacked one. The original one was framed to close to my liking. If you could only work with the light on the stack one..

A-300 / Minolta 28mm / SAL1870 / SAL100M28 / SAL70300g
Exploring the automatic functions in P,A, and S - Still scared of M

Offline chappo1

  • Administrator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • ******
  • Posts: 9350
  • Gender: Male
  • real name..... john
    • chappo's doodlings-australian wildlife
Re: Flower
« Reply #10 on: October 13, 2009, 01:33:37 AM »
Looks good to me...addictive isn't it?  Once you get the hang of stacking, a single shot macro always seems a compromise.  You will find with a good macro there is more positive feel to the manual focal adjustment...john 
“Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils."

Hector Berlioz