- This topic is empty.
Another Unremarkable Picture of a Little Orange Flower
-
Calendula- or Marigold- I think.
Don’t know the Irish name-
Flower approx 50mm diameter.Magnification 1:2
300mm f/16
DX format.
ok, maybe there is something remarkable about this one-
I wonder if anyone can tell me what it is-j
Don’t know much about marco stuff but i like this. Hoping to buy a macro lens myself soon
The black simple background is great in this. Really concentrates the eye on the orange petals
As for “maybe there is something remarkable about this one – I wonder if anyone can tell me what it is” My guess is that its a plastic flower? :idea:
M
It’s a really nice photo. The colours and sharpness are amazing.
I think the remarkable thing is the focal plane. The petal front edge
is as sharp as the centre of the flower, yet the stalk is clearly way out of focus.
I reckon you’ve done some tricks with bellows.Martin, that flower was alive this morning-
however, I can assure you that no animals were harmed in the making of this picture-
well, none that you can see, anyway-I can’t believe you got it so quickly Mr. Bloke-
the clues were all there, of course-Yes, the patent of that famous Austrian, or Australian, I can’t remember which,
was deployed for this picture- the Scheimpflug Principle-Focus is not parallel with the film plane, as it is with fixed lens cameras-
it has been tilted parallel to the petals of the flower,
and as you rightly pointed out, the stem is thrown out of focus-I checked the dof tables-
for the figures given above, dof is 0.0 mm,
so movements on a camera do come in useful-
don’t let anyone try to tell you otherwise-Well done that Bloke-
j
OK, I’m off to look up the Scheimpflug Principle :).
Did you use a tilt/shift lens or did you use your large format camera and its bellows ?Lovely effect its given you. I think that the leave at the bottom and the second small stems are
a bit of a distraction. Although this is negated to a large extent by the wonderful sharpness of the
flower head itself.Top notch. As stated before the simple black background really helps divert attention to the flower, which as a lovely depth of field and is sharp right in the centre, just where it should be.
Can I ask how many light sources you used, I count, one from above and one from below the flower from the front to light up the stem.BTW: I’d get rid of that little green leaf right at the bottom
Thank you gentlemen-
appreciate the comments-First things first Brian-
yes that leaf is a bit distracting-
but as a guarantee of at least one comment, its worth leaving in, for the moment :wink:Light sources-
it was taken next to a window, in shade.
a piece of black card was taped to the window,
and I used a large reflector above the flower to modify the light coming in-Mirror up, and exposed when it looked right-
Exposures were in the order of one second at f/16Mark, I presume you’re clear about the Scheimpflug Principle now?
Good- :DThis was taken on the view camera-
I recently got an adapter to mount the Nikon on it,
and I used a Nikkor M (micro) 300mm f/9-
really quite a stunning lens,
though not as sharp as you might be used to,
compared to lenses for DSLR’s, or 35mm.There is a reason for this though-
a DX lens is optomized for quite a small image circle-
something like 33mm diameter,
and this lens projects an image circle of 325mm at infinity-
so I reckon the trade-off is acceptable enough.
At 1:1 magnification, which this lens is optimized for,
image circle is double that.Bellows draw on this one, at 1:2 magnification, was about 460mm,
and the flower was about a meter away from the lens-The petal at the back,
the one that’s not sharp-
that’s because its displaced vertically;
had it been as high as the petal beside it, it too would have been sharp-Thanks again for the comments,
glad you like it-j
Unremarkable my arse.
Again, I’m blinded by science, and that’s without even
Googling the Scheimpflug Principle. So much to understand,
and all of it sailing unhindered over my freshly shorn head…Lovely work Joseph, but of course you already know that…
Rob.
Bloody hell, that’s a lovely shot. Bit early on a monday for the Scheimpflug Principle, I’ll come back to that later!
Great work, and very educational!cheers,
beefCheers Rob, Beef-
Unremarkable my arse.
Was worth it for that comment alone-
Never too early for Herr Scheimpflug, Beef-
his patent is over a hundred years old now-The funny thing is, to a person who doesn’t know about optics or depth of field,
(or even the Scheimpflug Principle- once you start saying it you can’t stop-
it should really be a movie starring Matt Damon)
this picture is pretty unremarkable-
It is pretty much how you would expect the flower to look-Isn’t it?
j
jb7 wrote:
this picture is pretty unremarkable-
It is pretty much how you would expect the flower to look-Gawn’ fishin’, gawn’ fishin’
That was very interesting JB, thanks for sharing. My guess it was plastic too.
Off to look up the Scheimpflug Principle, but don’t ask me to pronounced it.chime-fluke apparently-
though I can’t believe I’m agreeing that its a strange name with someone called RavenAsh-Anyway, don’t go talking about it down the pub,
they’ll stop serving you drinks-Pete- you were doing so well-
could almost see you on Mastermind,
specialist subject- Bellows-
then all of a sudden,
more like something out of ‘The Shining’ or ‘Deliverance’ or ‘Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?’Is that a Bing Crosby number you’re crooning?
j
JB7, love the strong colour on the black background, nice composition too.
The shot works well …
Dara.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
