Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Macro, Flowers, Insects, and Greenery' started by obelix, Apr 11, 2005.
What camera/lens combo did you use? Tripod?
D70 + 105mm micro nikkor.
Tripod = Feisol CT 3401 + Kirk BH-3. The conservatory does not allow tripods inside , so I used the tripod with one leg extended. [Lost 60% of photos]
These are so different from what you usually post!!! I think they are fantastic. The first and last are my favorite. The first because the fern is pointing down instead of the standard point up. Great shot. The last because I almost started sneezing from the pollen....you can almost cound each fleck of pollen if you look close enough!
Thanks Leigh, I usually search for patterns and lines in man made objects, looks like I was searching the wrong areas .
BTW, the pollen probably explains the cold I have today!
Nice detail and color!!
Lovely shots Anand. I guess that these places must have a reason to restrict tripods, but for the life of me, I can't think what it might be (maybe they are concerned about inconsiderate photogs tripping folks with them??).
In any case, these are beauties. ;-)
Thanks Bryan, Frank.
The place gets very busy and it is cramped. Even with the monopod and backpack, I was blocking many people .
Lovely images that capture the essence of the ferns in a pleasing and interesting manner. You are to be commended for your unique views.
Thanks Gordon. I got some strong critique that the shallow DOF did not work well. I guess the crowd in tee cafe is more forgiving.
Or more discerning!!! :lol: :lol:
Hope you don't mind my nitpicking just like last time.
Once again, I like the concepts for some of the images, but I have to say that the shallow DOF did not leave you enough margin for error me thinks in some of them. I guess the unfriendly-to-photographer situation must not have helped here. I suspect you would've gotten them "right" if you were allowed to set up properly tripod and all.
For me, I would've wanted the DOF to include the entire leafy branch in #1, at least uniformly across the entire row of nearby leaves in #2 and maybe the entire side of the leaf in #4 excepting the stem area perhaps. Also, for the green subjects, I would've prefered a background that wasn't so green.
For #3, I would've probably gone for a tilted frame (vs what you have) to play out the twists more w/ the tilted perspective. Maybe started out the "top" end from one corner of the frame, twirling it across to the other side and then back in the bottom 1/3.
I think I like #5 more or less as is. The shallow DOF seems to work for me there. Perhaps, it's because I'm not given the impression that the whole leaf (or pattern) *should* be in focus, but rather, there's a certain kind of calming, image fusion going on that appeals to my senses.
All this is just IMHO of course. Take it w/ a huge block of salt as YMMV more than I think.
I really like these, esp the extremely shallow DOF. I'm guessing that more of these places are concerned about liability if someone trips over a tripod. At least they've got the brains to allow a mono! I must admit shamefully that I'll wink at the security guards when I go very early in the day and there'll be no problem with a tripod but I strap it to my back if the place busies up.
Never thought about the one leg extended to replicate a mono! Thanks for the idea.
Hey, no problem. That is the reason why I post here.
In a few photos, yes
Agree on the background. The focus was intentional in #1, I agree with the comment on #2 and #4
Thanks, very interesting idea. Yes, it would have worked much better.
You and your caveats :lol: Come on, stop it - at least with me . Anyway, a bigger VF and wide spread focus points as in the 20D would help.
Thanks, one less thing to carry, my tripod is fairly light and the one leg trick works well .
With the benefit of hindsight, I should have used the SB 800 wirelessly. At times my brain goes for a sleep
Heh heh. Well, maybe it's not really for you as much as it is for show for others. Gotta at least keep up the appearance of politeness around here so I don't get booted off the site, no? :wink:
Yeah, I totally agree on this. That's why I've been looking forward to the D100 replacement. And if that camera doesn't pan out, maybe I should buy a used D2H instead. Just wish the noise level of the D2H is lower at least though.
BTW, since I told my wife about Roman Johnston's little story about his new D2H (from his girlfriend), my wife has apparently been secretly considering doing something like that for me as well. Only reason I found out about that is that our old car finally died, and we need to get a new one -- and she told me about her little stash that she was thinking to use for my 10th wedding anniversary present, but thought we might need it for the new car instead. Well, it looks like we probably won't need her stash for the car, so now, I'm wondering what to suggest for the present instead. :wink: Hmmm... Maybe I'll finally upgrade to the 70-200VR and put the rest toward the body upgrade and/or some other lens or whatever. OR maybe I need to figure out what to get her instead(!) -- I still have lots of time though since it's not for another 8 months.
Hey, that is awesome. Congrats.
Hmm, why does a New Yorker need a car? Car vs D2X + lenses - for a new yorker, the choice is easy
I was pleasantly surprised how bright the VF was when I use it with the 70-200 VR.
When I told my wife about Roman's experience, she shot back "So what did he ger her first?" . But my wife did grant me a $2K limit on photographic expenses this year.
I think we are lucky .
Very nice! Ferns are an endless source for taking interesting pics.
LOL! I hear ya. Believe it or not, I don't even drive(!). :mrgreen: The wife is the designated driver in our family (and for my in-laws most of the time). I was pushing for just a good used car myself, etc. etc. The rest could still pay for a D2X + upgrade to 70-200VR, etc. :wink: But honestly, I could never justify to myself the expense of D2X just for one piece of a "hobby". As it is, my in-laws are already wondering if I'm prematurely entering mid-life crisis w/ all this photography stuff (and the hair growth, LOL!).
Well, I can't say I've noticed, but then again, I rarely have slow/dim glass on my D70. I usually keep something f/2 or brighter on it and switch to f/2.8 when I need the telezoom (and rarely do that in less than daylight). For me, it's just the VF size and available focus points (and AF accuracy/speed).
But now that you remind me, maybe I should be lusting after the 28 f/1.4 in addition to 70-200VR. Sounds like one awesome piece of glass for street photography, etc. from all that I hear. Mmmmmm... And then, there's the 85 f/1.4 or 105 f/2 DC too. :lol: And can't forget about an upgrade to some 12-24 f/4 on the wide end either. :wink: Don't need a D2X to run up the bill when there's lens lust to consider -- and I'm not even a bird guy, LOL(!). :lol:
Yeah, I remember you mentioning that.
Either that or we're easy to please (but are somewhat reluctant to say so)? :lol: