Photos - Wild Flowers

Hi

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

On 17 Apr 2004 06:35:02 -0700, Icarus wrote:

>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

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"

Phil Cook

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

------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >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
>
> 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" <u-r-walk@p-t-cook.RfErMeOeVsEeCrAvPeS.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qmr280dk91tvs9rkcetjdivsq3ac3trfdb@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.

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.

In message
<97d9e678.0404171819.3a6dddcd@posting.google.com>, Icarus
<john015436@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

>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.

"Phil Cook" <u-r-walk@p-t-cook.RfErMeOeVsEeCrAvPeS.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qmr280dk91tvs9rkcetjdivsq3ac3trfdb@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.

Ste

Michael Farthing

Here, Here !!! I'll nominate him !!

Your not Farthing of Farthing Wood are you by any chance :-)

Icarus

-----------------------------------------------------
Michael Farthing <mf@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<EZ5FmYBsrmgAFw6W@cyclades.demon.co.uk>...
> In message
> <97d9e678.0404171819.3a6dddcd@posting.google.com>, Icarus
> <john015436@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!

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
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:47:31 +0100, Paul Saunders wrote:

>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.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the
"Westminster Gasworks"

In article <c5upic$nns$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, Paul Saunders
<pvs1@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

In message
<97d9e678.0404181159.6d7d434c@posting.google.com>, Icarus
<john015436@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>Michael Farthing
>
>Here, Here !!! I'll nominate him !!
>
>Your not Farthing of Farthing Wood are you by any
>chance :-)
>

Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh-
hhh. 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
--
Michael Farthing cyclades Software House

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:41:01 +0100, Simon Caldwell wrote:

>>
>>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.

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 looking north over the park to the
"Westminster Gasworks"

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:16:34 +0100, stemc © wrote:

>
>"Phil Cook" <u-r-walk@p-t-cook.RfErMeOeVsEeCrAvPeS.co.uk>
>wrote in message
>news:qmr280dk91tvs9rkcetjdivsq3ac3trfdb@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. 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.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the
"Westminster Gasworks"

"Phil Cook" <u-r-walk@p-t-cook.RfErMeOeVsEeCrAvPeS.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9ts58053pi18ba7rcfq20cujou32v7ff08@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:16:34 +0100, stemc © wrote:
|
| >
| >"Phil Cook" <u-r-walk@p-t-cook.RfErMeOeVsEeCrAvPeS.co.uk>
| >wrote in
message
| >news:qmr280dk91tvs9rkcetjdivsq3ac3trfdb@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