roy_nash
-
Posts
25 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by roy_nash
-
-
<p>Hi James. Having looked at these pictures on Flickr the colours don't seem particularly "rich and powerful" to me. There are many wonderful pictures to be seen on Flickr. These seem to be rather typical examples. As a Flickr user myself, however, I wonder how appropriate it was for you to include a link to this photographer's work to this forum apparently without her knowledge. I suggest if you like pictures and wish to know how they were achieved you contact her directly via Flickr. I also wonder how relevant your query is to this forum which is about nature photography rather than photography in general . Regards.</p>
-
<p>Hi Don The colour of these vetches is somewhat variable. White, pink, purple and almost blue are possible. There are also closely related yellow species. Here Vicia sylvatica is usually the same colour as in your photo. Here is a link to Google images showing the variability of these plants :<br>
The definitive source book for identifying vetches and other wild flowers here in Britain is : W.Keble Martin - The New Concise British Flora (1982). As many wild flowers have a worldwide range or closely related species in many countries this book is an ideal starting point for identification purposes especially if you do not have any specific books on flora in your location. You should be able to find a copy on eBay. <br>
I've photographed these vetches myself in the past and it is very easy to render some of the lighter lilac or pink ones as white by over-exposing them. </p>
-
<p>Hi Don. Your flower is probably a vetch which is a type of legume which typically grows close to the ground in grassland. This one looks like the Wood Vetch (Vicia sylvatica) which is common here in England but there are lots of other closely related Vicia species so it's impossible to be certain without local knowledge.</p>
-
<p>Hi Again Chris<br>
Yes you are right that very fast exposures would not give you the look you want. However you may need to compromise. It is my belief that if you can achieve a shutter speed as fast as 1/30, 1/60 or even a bit faster you could be lucky and get sufficient movement in the waterfalls without too much movement from the boat. Success will obviously be more a question of chance so take plenty of shots and some may be OK.<br>
Good luck.<br>
Roy</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Hi Chris<br>
I wonder whether going for a long exposure is the right approach to this problem. You might get better results if you crank up the ISO rating on your camera so that you can take short exposures. I doubt any gyroscopic platform for your camera would be much use.<br>
Good luck<br>
Roy</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Hi Michael<br>
It's a long time since I've attempted any star trail photography but I am pretty sure your LONG exposures are far too long. Also if the old film body requires batteries to power it's shutter you are certain to completely drain them if your exposures are that long. Many old cameras have mechanical shutters however which could be held open indefinitely on the "B" setting. I doubt even at the smallest aperture non-specialist film would be able to cope with such long exposures. There is plenty of stuff on the web on the subject. Here's an example which I think you'll find useful.<br>
Good luck.</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>I agree this is probably a hen pheasant or immature male but it differs slightly from pictures I've seen. Another possibility is a female grey partridge. It is certainly a similar game bird.</p>
-
<p>Hi Again Siegfried<br>
With regard to your point about teleconverters. Yes they do work by magnifying the image from the lens attached but they also have 3 other effects which are relevant to your original question. Firstly they reduce the amount of light passed. This means that your maximum aperture will effectively be f2 or less before you add any tubes. Adding tubes will further reduce the light you have for focusing but unless your subject is poorly lit you should be able to focus OK. Secondly and more crucially adding a teleconverter to a lens seriously alters the degree to which the lens can focus closely. When working in macro the difference is massive. I combined a 50mm lens with a 36mm tube and a 2x converter and the closest I could get was about 6 inches from the subject. Without the converter you can get much closer. By adding more tubes closer still but it may be an advantage not to get too close because there is the danger you crowd the subject or cast shadows by your equipment. Thirdly unlike the tubes a teleconverter contains glass which bends the light. A 50mm lens plus a 2x converter will rarely give you the quality of a 100mm lens. Generally the more glass you add into the equation, especially close up, the more likely it is that the image will degrade. However photography is often about compromises. You may still get great results. With regard to your worries about supplementary close up lenses, the achromatic ones are very useful. They have a big bonus that they have no affect on working aperture. Even the cheap ones can create great pictures. One last thing I should have said before about macro photography is that avoiding shake is as important as any set up. To be successful you probably also need a tripod, a macro focusing rail, and a remote shutter release. Good luck.</p>
-
<p>Hi Again Siegfried<br>
Another approach you might consider if you choose to buy yourself a good macro lens is to get as close as possible and crop the image so 1:1 is achieved. You will lose a little quality of course but the images could still be very good.<br>
Also you can get pretty close using your 50mm and close up (diopter) lenses. These screw in like filters and come in different magnifications (+1. +2, +4 etc) Avoid +10 and above as these have very little depth of field to play with even at small apertures. <br>
The cheaper ones can distort at the edges, sometimes badly. The more expensive achromatic ones are pretty good these days and don't lose you too much quality. The Raynox ones are good too. Again cropping the final picture a little may help you achieve 1:1<br>
Good luck.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Hi Siegfried<br>
By far the best way to do near and true macro is to use automatic bellows with your lens. However these are not cheap. Extension tubes are more limited but work well with a standard lens. Even with the light loss caused by moving the lens away from the camera you should be able to focus OK. Unless you are lucky enough to have automatic tubes however you will also have to manually stop down to an appropriate f stop to achieve an acceptable depth of field. Lighting and correct exposure will require some experimentation. <br>
Using a teleconverter, won't help you get nearer to or beyond 1:1. I've tried with a 2x but I'm sure a 1.4x will be similar. If you add a teleconverter you won't be able to focus as closely on the subject. This may be an advantage for lighting in some cases but it won't give you a bigger image of the subject. <br>
Most "macro" lenses can't actually take 1:1 shots. You can get far closer with tubes or bellows. You can also take extremely close pictures if you mount your 50mm lens in reverse. You can buy cheap adaptors to do this. If you want to get closer still you can always invest in an adaptor to fit a microscope !<br>
Good luck. Hope you have fun exploring the macro world and get some great pictures.</p>
-
<p>Hi Faith<br>
I'm surprised you haven't had lots of suggestions. A few months ago I was looking for something similar and did some research on eBay and elsewhere. Although I didn't end up buying a waterproof camera in the end the one which seems much better than the rest is the Fujifilm XP10. This is waterproof to 3m, shockproof and freezeproof to -10. It also has a 5x zoom and at 12mp should produce reasonable shots.<br>
Hope you get some good pictures.<br>
Roy</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Hi Ray</p>
<p>I think the problem you have is not how many pictures to take but when. Light changes in intensity and colour throughout the day and according to season and weather. Our eyes are wonderful devices that accommodate most of these changes without us being aware of them. The mind's eye used in preconceiving a shot even more so. Sadly film is not that good at representing a scene as you want it especially slide film which has little latitude and is not normally printed. Digital is a little better mostly because you are able to manipulate images afterwards. However, whatever camera or recording medium you use it helps to be on the scene at the right time. Understanding light takes a lot of practice so take as many pictures as you can at different times and in different conditions. I've just read an excellent book which should help - "<em>The Essential Lighting Manual for Photographers</em>" by Chris Weston (2008) Published by RotoVision. This book has a large section on natural light and landscapes and explains the above points better than I can. Good luck. </p>
-
<p>Hi Bill. Years ago when I used an SLR film camera and wanted to photograph fungi and mosses very close up I experimented with a 135mm lens on the camera coupled to a reversed 50mm. This only worked where the lens on the camera was set to infinity and the coupled lens was used for focusing or more often focusing was done by moving the distance between the subject and camera. I used a focusing rail for this. The main problems were extreme lack of depth of field and focusing. Without through the lens metering exposure was also tricky.<br>
I never got into the maths of magnification but when you use the reversed lens for focusing this actually increases or decreases the focus distance of the combined lens a little so you don't have a fixed magnification ratio.<br>
Although I got some good shots I found that extension tubes and then a bellows unit were far more flexible ways of getting reliable macro shots at different macro magnifications and would recommend you invest in either of them if you are serious about getting into real macro. <br>
Above all forget about the maths. It's experience that helps your photography. Good luck. </p>
-
<p>Hi Anthony.<br>
I think you are getting a little confused here. A polarizing filter has no effect on the F-stop. If you start at F5.6 for example you still have F5.6 with the filter on. However, the filter will reduce the amount of light getting into your camera. How much depends on the filter and the lens but it might mean you need a longer exposure which may increase blur. Alternatively you might want to increase the aperture to let more light in. This would decrease your depth of field which could also be a problem. A third possibility would be to crank up the ISO value to give your camera a little more sensitivity to light but if this is already high your pictures could have more "noise".<br>
When photographing birds over water as in your examples you want to minimise sun being reflected off the water surface. A polarizing filter may help here if used correctly. The filter is likely to make your sky bluer which is an advantage if the bird is white. However, using the filter from above could make the water appear too transparent. You need to rotate the filter until it looks right. <br>
Polarizing filters are cheap and worth having. I suggest you buy one and try it out. That way you'll learn how to use it. Good luck.</p>
-
<p>Hi Peter. Like Kevin I am intrigued to know what animal you wish to photograph at night as this may limit the approaches you can take. Stalking any animal at night is difficult and more dangerous than doing so during daylight. The main technical problems are (1) focus - even if you see the animal you will probably not be able to focus your camera and autofocus will not work unless you have very specialised equipment : (2) exposure - unless you use flash you need very long exposures even if you crank the ISO up and this will blur any movement ; (3) unless you have specialised flash equipment in a preset location with remote triggering this flash be useless and may temporarily blind the animal you are photographing especially if it is noturnal. For these reasons pro night shots of animals are often "faked". For example small rodents are often caught and photographed indoors in realistic sets. Sometimes larger animals are shot in daylight and the images are altered afterwards to appear to be night shots. You might find this a lot easier to achieve the shots you want. Good luck.</p>
-
<p>Hi Harry. It's seems like you are more into accumulating equipment than taking pictures ! Although bellows will give amazing results for table-top set-ups they are not very practical when stalking butterflies in the wild. The key to taking good close-ups is plenty of practice and patience. You need to get to know and explore each piece of equipment you have. You will find each has advantages and limitations. Don't buy anything else until you have explored the limits of what you already have. Good Luck. </p>
-
<p>Hi Jennifer. This seems to be some sort of currant (<em>Ribes</em>). Exactly which one I don't know but I hope that's enough to get you looking in the right area for proper identification.</p>
-
<p>Hi. I've used close-up lenses for flowers on various cameras for years and find they are easier to use and far cheaper than extension tubes. The main advantage is that they do not require longer exposures. You can also use the same close-ups on any camera or lens that takes filters including video cameras. Provided you avoid the cheaper ones the problem of edge definition is overstated unless you stack them or use the higher diopter ones. You can always crop the edges anyway and sometimes a little loss of edge definition can look creative. The achromatic close-ups are the best. Also consider using a Raynox DCR-250 which is a high quality macro lens with it's own adaptor. <br>
Whichever approach you take, flower photography close up can be challenging in terms of depth of field and focusing. You will be surprised how fast a flower can move ! That's why I prefer short exposures. Good luck.</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Thanks Greg<br>
Good luck with your project.</p>
-
<p>Hi <br>
I'm a little concerned for the fragile habit and the rare endangered plants concerned. I've no objection to photographs for whatever reason and find the pictures interesting but any rare organism must be treated with the utmost care and vanishing habits disturbed as little as possible. I would have liked to see some mention at least on the precautions you are taking in this respect. </p>
-
<p>I used to do this years ago before the days of digital. I hope I can remember something useful. <br /> 1. 50mm lens designs differ considerably. Some will give a much better effect. I was a member of a camera club and as members we experimented with all kinds. I believe that the faster lenses are better (f1.7 for example). This is partly because the image is brighter when viewing but also because they tended to be better made lenses. Pentax M series and similar Cosina lenses were the ones I used.<br /> 2. The reversed 50/200mm is about the best combination. I've tried other coupled lens combinations. The technique was quite common at one time. You should be able to get information by looking in old 35mm photography books. "Reverse coupling" is a more correct term for this type of photography and not "stacking". I believe "stacking" is the term used when more than one close-up supplementary lens is combined to increase the close up effect. It is also a multiple exposure technique used for macro photography to gain maximum depth of field. <br /> 3. I agree with others who have said that beyond 1:1 you will have the problem of a very restricted depth of field which will make focusing without a focusing rail extremely difficult. <br /> 4. If your subject is very flat and reasonably transparent (eg. an insect wing or a petal ) and can be mounted in a slide, you can get great pictures above x 4 magnification using an optical slide-copier or digital scanner.</p>
-
<p>Hi. I've just bought a led ring light called a "Ring48". This fits the front of your lens via the filter thread just like a ringflash and is specifically designed for macro and close up work. It comes with various adaptors for filter sizes. Unlike a ringflash the unit gives out a constant steady light when switched on and has 3 settings, all leds on, left hand-leds on, and right-hand leds on. You meter exposure through the camera as you would any other light scource. Results are softer than a ringflash and because it doesn't flash to freeze movement you need a tripod and a fast shutter speed. The unit is relatively inexpensive compared to a ringflash and can be bought on eBay.</p>
Flower ID please
in Nature
Posted
<p>Hi Thomas<br>
Lovely photograph. Your flower appears to be a hibiscus possibly one of the varieties of <em>Hibiscus rosa. </em>They come in all sorts of colours. I wish I had them blooming in my garden.</p>