Orchis masculata and var.

doktorstamp · Post by **doktorstamp** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:05 am

Orchis Masculata. The Orchid season is now into its fourth week

These were both taken with
EOS 3
16-35mm with 25mm Extension tube At far end of zoom
ISO 400
F5.6 (to get some depth of field)
¼sec
Tripod

This first is an apparent albino var. at least to the naked eye when viewing without assistance.

The second a standard flower.

The third shows the set up used to obtain the shots

All taken in the Amberley CHalk Pits Museum site, West Sussex GB

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:37 pm

I note that you used "f5.6 to get some depth of field". It depends where you wanted that depth. Were you interested in the single flower, isolated against the background of the others? If you, you have probably been successful.

Normally, I would stop down at least to f11 at such a magnification. It may be useful, too, to have the lens at right angles to the subject (not so in your third image).

I am seeing horizonal stripes, like TV lines, in the first two images, something I have not noticed before in this forum.

Harold

doktorstamp · Post by **doktorstamp** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:10 am

Hi Harold

These are scanned from prints, and the lines may have something to do with that.

Right angles I agree, however the tripod I had with me could not get any lower.

kind regards

Nigel

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:18 am

Sorry again Nigel, discouraging you is the last thing I want to do, but like Harold I cannot see much that was in focus in the original print anyway.

Depth of field is so small at these magnifications that you do not need to use a wide aperture to blur the background, you are fighting to at least get something in focus, the background blurs anyway. For Web use I often use f16-f22 since the screen resolution hides any diffraction effects.

Ideally, if intending to reproduce the image digitally you should take it digitally in the first place since any intervening process like film or scanning to digital from prints degrades the original image.

If you are using autofocus switch to manual focus close up and screen focus since autofocus is unreliable that close due to the very limited depth of field not covering it's inaccuracies as with conventional photography.

DaveW

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:32 am

I had forgotten that the exposure was 1/4 second. That would be 1/2 second at f11. Except under still air conditions, there will be blur from movement of the subject, even at 1/15 second. (I have spent many long periods of time waiting for flowers to stop moving). For framing individual orchid flowers, flash may be essential to permit any useful depth of field.

For macro there is no substitute for a fully adjustable tripod which will allow the camera to be held at all levels up to about six feet, and at all angles. A central column which does not leave the vertical, but which has a tripod mounting screw on its bottom end has possibilities in some situations.

Harold

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:59 am

Being mainly a cactus photographer I had forgotten wind movement on more delicate plants though some natural history photographers do use a wind break around the plant to stop this:-

http://www.tcinternet.net/users/nmolson ... graphy.htm

http://www.jclarksonphotography.com/macro/index.php

The best natural history tripods in the UK for getting down low are the Benbo's or Uniloc's. I am still using one of the original Mk. 1 Benbo's.

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/categor ... 7&brand=23

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/categor ... itid=65736

Both are based on the original Benbo tripods made by Kennet Engineering. You can often find these secondhand on EBAY if you put in Benbo or Uniloc.

DaveW

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:43 am

My tripod is a Kennet original, as is my macro ring (for twin flash), used with manual flash in my Canon A1 days. I have used the latter for OM TTL flash, with my OM2n, by insulating the hotshoes with electrical tape and using TTL cords direct to the camera.

Harold

doktorstamp · Post by **doktorstamp** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 2:14 am

@Dave

Your criticism is accepted and I find it constructive, it certainly doesn´t discourage me, but focuses my mind on what I can do better next time.

A dedicated macro lens is on my purchase list and as and when funds permit I shall buy one, most likely the 100mm F2.8 from Canon, although the 180mm is under consideration too, quite possibly I shall end up with both.

@Harold

Your suggestion of suspending the camera from between the legs of the tripod is something I had not considered, however the tripod I have does permit this, the central column being reversible

I do have a ring flash and perhaps should make more use of it.

regards

Nigel

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 2:54 am

The main problem with ring flashes Nigel is they can produce very flat lighting with little modeling. The "macro flashes" are now tending to largely replace them and have small twin flashes each side of the lens whose power can be varied one side to the other. This is Nikon's, but Canon do a similar one:-

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/r1c1.htm

Ring lights are ideal for some purposes though, so what some do is tape a bit of tissue paper on one side of the ring to reduce its output slightly and so provide better modelling' Some stick black sticky tape on to blank out part of the ring, but this is not advisable since there may be a problem getting that off later if it bakes on.

DaveW

puzzledpaul · Post by **puzzledpaul** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:37 am

Re low-level work - esp. in ground level to 1 ft (say) above region

'Dancing octopus' tripods are ok - but certainly not perfect (imo) ... have used a mid-range uniloc for prob 10+yrs prior to 'going dslr'

One issue is specific to these - the fact that there's a a single adjustment for all 4 elements - which can be a problem - especially when wanting to rotate (in vertical plane) the central sliding tube.

All tripods (including a very robust Gitzo giant) that I've used - exhibit a degree of vertical 'springiness' in the centre when the legs are splayed out to their maximum extent. Depending on the (weight of the) gear being supported - and prob more relevant - how it's being used - static / dynamic 'tracking' (following) - this is an issue worth noting.

Also, in this configuration the footprint (even with legs fully retracted, for both main tripod types) can be problematic ... from both aspects of where to physically place the legs (on all sorts of counts) and the fact that they can easily be in the way of the camera / head arrangement and thus affect convenient image framing.

To get to ground level (still using a tripod or similar) really requires additional accessories like an L bracket (or flat plate with inverted head) - because in a low-level configuration, the ball head pan axis is closer to horizontal than vertical ... which often compromises the effective range of ball movement.

The various sites (and tripod makers) that suggest fixing the camera upside down on an inverted head / central column arrangement are - imo - prob written by ppl who don't do this on a regular basis

Yes, it can be (and is) done - and it works - but is it good / convenient / preferred option? Methinks no.
There is also a very big problem re getting as low as possibe, if using std. flash, because of the extra height above the lens caused by the extension cord connector (assuming off-cam flash)
Possibly worse using twin macro flashes (depending on design) because the gubbins that goes in the hotshoe is even bigger / higher.

Personally, I don't think there's such a thing as a 'perfect' tripod - for all situations, esp. when including the above scenario - if you want to maximise framing options ... and be relatively comfortable in the process.

I currently use a home-made rig for the low (macro) stuff - upto about 1m above ground level and the Uniloc as a bipod for higher stuff.

At the end of the day, ppl should / will use whatever they find comfortable / effective – irrespective of what they might read, or what other ppl ‘do’ - especially since ppl like Brian Valentine use a bean pole ... and get splendid results

<< shall buy one, most likely the 100mm F2.8 from Canon, although the 180mm is under consideration too, quite possibly I shall end up with both.>>

A good idea, imo - if funds allow.

Depends what you want to take pix of, what mags you're after and how you like to operate. Much is written about how - if one can get close enough with a 180, then with a bit more stealth / practice / patience etc then you should also be able to get near enough to use a 100 - and get a similar pic.

This may well be true - but not always - apart from anything else, sometimes - for purely practical reasons - it's absolutely impossible to get as close as you want with a 100 - having a 180 or similar in your bag can then be a life (or rather, shot) saver. (Am considering suggesting a 1.4x extender as ‘suitable’ pressie for a forthcoming ‘big’ birthday, too … for similar reasons)

(I couldn't have physically got any closer with the last 2 shots I posted here)

<<Your suggestion of suspending the camera from between the legs of the tripod is something I had not considered, however the tripod I have does permit this, the central column being reversible >>

Nigel - in view of my comments about this arrangement - and the fact that we're both in the UK ... if you can't 'get on' with the inverted cam. arrangement and you want to try a bracket of some sort but don't have ali bar lying around - contact me and I'll see what I can find

<< Ring lights are ideal ... // ... may be a problem getting that off later if it bakes on. >>

If I was using a ring light and wanted to do this sort of thing, I'd cover the ringlight with a ring-shaped bit of celluloid / clear plastic ---then you could 'clag on' any old junk

All above imo - but based on what I actually use - not what I've read I should use / do.

pp

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:58 am

Getting back to daylight macro exposures, you need mirror lock-up (ideally with the shutter tripped via a cable or air release*) or even still-air shots may not be sharp.

* These can sometimes enable you to remove your own shadow from the framed subject.

Harold

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:48 am

One way to get down lower is either to buy or make a "ground spike", which is at it's most basic is a short bit of sharpened rod with a 1/4" Whitworth thread on top to take a ball and socket or pan and tilt head, which you stick into the soil as low as you like.

http://st12.flashecom.com/photohabitat/ ... _id=CU1006

I have not had too much trouble with the Benbo "dancing octopus", provided you put a bit of "nip" on the bent bolt to provide friction you can usually simply move one element at once I find. If you just slacken it off fully it has a mind of it's own! I only slacken it off fully initially to set the legs then partially tighten and move the centre column against the friction.

DaveW

puzzledpaul · Post by **puzzledpaul** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:33 am

<< One way to get down lower is either to buy or make a "ground spike" >>

Possibly worth slinging a h.made one in the kit bag for some scenarios - as an experiment ... athough for macro work some sort of rail / fore-aft accessory'd be highly desirable, I reckon.

(I'll stick with what I use, however, as neither of the 2 sites I frequent at a local botanical gdns are suitable - concrete in one case, decking in the other - doubt that the staff'd approve, somehow

)

<< Getting back to daylight macro exposures ... >>
Being able to alter iso on a frame by frame basis also helps with this.

pp

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:49 am

I sometimes find that a bean bag does the ground level job very well.

Harold

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:53 am

Trouble is with very long exposures and the bag in contact with the ground the beans are liable to germinate Harold!

DaveW