View Single Post
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-2008, 01:03 PM
rerem rerem is offline
I'm new here!
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stryker View Post
Ah, I'd like to think I'm improving my focusing technique. Here's my latest attempt:

Flickr 16

I especially liked the way the water glistens in the middle, I put a drop of water into the flower just to see how it will appear. Came out OK, I guess.

EXIF:
Aperture: f/5.6
Speed: 0.005 (1/200) sec
ISO: 1600
.................................................. ................rerem.............
This is quite nice. A Cosmos is rather 2D so at the right angle you can get the plane for DOF. However, I'm fond of the texture,translucence that's possible outdoors. As a illustrative shot, this is fine. However,outdoors in the light of early morning or late afternoon,with a shot from an angle where not everything is sharp...there's where you can find soul.

I have intentionally wetted a flower. Natural morning dew and morning light,however is where you find the gem shot. You want to know about using the plane that puts a lot of the subject in full focus,but I believe that the transition to out of focus adds the depth while lighting adds texture and soul.

Keep in mind too,that a lot of the power of macro photography is that the camera acts as an intermediary,so you can see a reality in a large print that your eye never sees.

I used to like doing projects with Focal 400 slide film. Quite grainy but a bit warm toned and just amazing if you had real dramatic light. It kind of rendered like French Impressionist painting,not so accurate but a lot of soul. It's ironic that "better technology" has taken away that option.

Edited in PSE6 to resize and cleanup. The ISO jumped to 1600 because this was indoors and there wasn't any bright light around I could shine on the flower. I tried at lower ISO setting sbut they all came out darker than I wanted.
..............................................
The full flower:

Flickr 17

What do you guys think?
It's a good shot. With Macro,there's possibilities beyond the basic What You See Is What You Get. There's a whole realm of abstractions that actually are a result of minimal depth of field.
Reply With Quote