Posts Tagged Flower
June 29, 2010 – Hibiscus Flower
Posted by Dave in Flowers, Macro, Picture of the Day, Tropical/Beaches on June 29, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
http://www.davefry.net/rate/index.php?viewimage=1602
So as long as we’re on a Jamaican kick, I may as well keep it going. This is yet another shot that I got when I was in Jamaica earlier this year. This is a hibiscus flower. Or, this is *an* hibiscus flower. Normally, I tend to be one of those obnoxious folks that’s always snarkily pointing out glaring grammatical flaws. (My two personal favorites are using an apostrophe to pluralize a word (using apostrophe’s to pluralize your word’s), and using “less” instead of “fewer”. God I hate that.) But, in this particular case, I don’t know how I feel about it. I mean, I KNOW that you’re supposed to use “an” with words that start with h. But I just don’t buy it. It doesn’t feel natural. H is a consonant. It sounds like a consonant (most of the time, anyway). So why should we treat it like a vowel. Grrr, it eats me up inside.
Anyway, right, hibiscus. Cool, right? Yeah. I took this one with my ordinary walk-around lens (Tamron 17-50), but I used a cheap set of diopters aka macro lenses aka “a macro kit”. Basically, a couple little magnifying lenses that you screw on the end of your lens like a filter, that magnify the subject and let you focus closer. They’re a great way to dip your feet into macro photography, because they’re cheap. I mean, sure, if you’re a Canon purist, you can of course find a way to spend hundreds of dollars on one. But you don’t HAVE to, you can get an off brand (I have a set from Hoya and a set from Opteka. Different sizes, to fit different lenses, that’s why I have two) and only spend 20 or 30 bucks. I read a blog once from a guy that spent WEEKS researching which way to go, and eventually he decided to get the cheap ones, and he was just AMAZINGLY disappointed. He actually went so far to include the words “BIG MISTAKE” in his blog post. Yeah, that’s total crap. They’re not that bad. And besides, you spent 20 bucks on the goddamn things, how big of a mistake could it have really been? For things that are cheap like that, there’s no reason NOT to try them out. Sure, they may not be fantastic, but you may be surprised, and regardless, you’re only out like 20 bucks. Personally, I’m pretty happy with the cheapie cheaps. Sure, they’ve got their limitations, but as long as you realize that, you can work with it, and you can do some cool stuff.
Okay, rant over. Sorry I missed yesterday. I may also miss tomorrow, just sayin’.
Notes: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens with Opteka macro kit. 1/1000s, f/4.5, ISO 200. Focal length: 30mm.
Check out Flattr.com, it’s an awesome way to support the websites you love. Then, Flattr me!
Popularity: 18%
April 23, 2010 – Dandelion
Posted by Dave in - Best of Dave's POTD -, Flowers, Macro, Picture of the Day on April 23, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
http://www.davefry.net/rate/index.php?viewimage=1534
Oh, sure, today’s post is all significant because it’s the last one this week and everything. But just wait till Monday’s post. That’ll be big doin’s. Awwwww man, Monday’s a big deal. And yes, I’m being intentionally vague. Right, anyway…
In the last couple weeks, I looked outside and noticed that things had started blooming. Springtime once again. So, I decided to pick up where I had left off last summer with my macro toys. To give a quick refresher, I started out with a standard telephoto “macro” lens (quotation marks because it’s only 1:2 magnification, not even 1:1 like a “true” macro lens). Then I started doing stuff like buying little “macro kits” (little magnifying lenses that you attach to the front of your regular lens), and I ended up buying a reverse-mount adaptor near the end of the summer. I’ve talked about it many times before, but it’s a little metal ring that you screw on to the front of your lens like a filter, and it allows you to connect your lens backwards to the camera body. This gets you ridiculous macro, all for the exorbitant price of 12 dollars. (Although you lose nice things like autofocus and aperture control, since the electrical bits of your lens are no longer attached. – you can mitigate that a little bit by not using your fast glass – I’ve been using my kit lens – but it takes what is already a frightfully small depth of field and shrinks it further.)
Oh, before I move on, I should explain something. Magnification ratio. That’s a fairly important concept when it comes to macro. The magnification ratio is the ratio between how big something is in real life vs how big the projection of it is against your camera sensor (or <retch> film). So, an object that is 35mm across, when using a 1:1 magnification lens, will be projected life-size on your sensor, and if you’re using a 35mm camera or a full-frame sensor digital, it will take up the whole frame. (And then, when you print the picture or view it on your computer, it’ll be effing HUGE.) With most digital cameras (mine included), the sensor is actually smaller than the full 35mm, so in the case of the 35mm object, at 1:1 magnification it would be *larger* than the frame. So, a 1:2 magnification ratio means that the projection on your sensor will be half-life-size. Most standard telephoto zoom lenses have a 1:2 or 1:4 magnification ratio, for your reference. True “macro” lenses usually achive 1:1, and Canon makes this one crazy 65mm macro-specific lens that STARTS at 1:1, and goes all the way up to 5:1. 5 to 1. Think about that. The thing you’re taking a picture of will be FIVE TIMES BIGGER than life size on your itty-bitty sensor. That means that a fly’s eyeball will take up your entire sensor. Now imagine that you’re looking at a picture of a fly’s eyeball blown up to poster-size. Yeah, crazy, right?? That’s where I want to get someday. But that lens costs 1000 bucks, so someday is not today.
ANYWAY… all that talk about magnification ratio, and I actually have no clue what kind of ratio I have on this picture. I’m going to guess somewhere between 1:2 and 1:1. But using the reverse mount, I’m pretty sure I can fairly easily get past that magic 1:1 mark. When you’re using the reverse mount, the usual rule of “larger focal length means more zoomed in” is no longer true. If you’re using an 18-55 lens (like I was), the 18 end is the super close in end (which is actually too close in to really be usable) and the 55 end is more of a normal ridiculous macro. This shot was right out at the 55 and, and you can tell it’s still pretty neat. You’re looking at a dandelion, if that wasn’t obvious.
Why all this talk about macro stuff? Because I bought more macro stuff. Some of it should be getting here today! The rest, hopefully tomorrow, maybe Monday. What’d I get? Well, two things..
First, I got a set of macro extension tubes. Amazon link. You use them by attaching them between your lens and your camera. This moves the optical elements of your lens further away from the sensor, which essentially zooms you in. (Although it also makes it so you can focus closer in, at the expense of being able to focus to infinity.) Basically, it gets you wicked close. How close? Not sure. I’ll let you know after I play around with it. Although, I do know that it has a much more dramatic effect on shorter lenses. As in, if you attach your super-long telephoto lens with them, it won’t change that dramatically, but if you hook up your little tiny 50mm prime, you’ll rock your world so hard they’ll feel it in Australia. Or so I’ve heard. We’ll see. There’s no optics in the rings, they’re just hollow rings. But they DO pass through the electrical connections, so you can USE YOUR APERTURE! WOOOOO! We’ll see how this goes.
The other thing I got is a macro ring flash. Amazon link. This is basically a ring flash that you mount on the front of your lens. It, you know, shines light on stuff. In this case, stuff that’s right in front of your lens. One of the side effects of taking pictures of little tiny things is that you’re dealing with dramatically smaller quantities of light than, say, typical landscape photography. So you have to deal with things like high ISO and low shutter speed. Hopefully, this flash will help out. I started out with a cheapie-cheap one, so I can play around with it and see how well it works. the “real” ones cost much more, like 500 or 800 dollars. So I’m not there yet. Someday, someday. Not today.
So, hopefully next week (maybe even Monday?? Nah, already got a picture picked out for Monday) you’ll get to see some initial results! I can’t wait! Have a great weekend!
Notes: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, reverse-mounted 18-55mm kit lens. 1/500s, ISO 800. Aperture unknown. Focal length was somewhere around 55mm, but reverse-mounted.
Check out Flattr.com, it’s an awesome way to support the websites you love. Then, Flattr me!
Popularity: 29%
January 22, 2010- Anemone
Posted by Dave in - Best of Dave's POTD -, Flowers, Macro, Picture of the Day on January 22, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
http://www.davefry.net/rate/index.php?viewimage=1076
Hey look, it’s Friday again. So, I’m not really a flower person. And by that I mean, I love flowers, I think they’re really pretty, and I love taking pictures of them, but I really know nothing about them. Like, unless it’s a rose or a daisy, I have no idea. (And when in doubt, I usually just call it a daisy anyway.) So, I apologize for having no clue what we’re looking at here. But I thought it was really pretty. Pretty enough for a Friday.
And yes, I posted this before 8am. That’s weird. But I’m busy all day, so I tossed it up here now to get it out of the way. See you all on Monday.
UPDATE: One of my Facebook friends told me that this is an anemone. So there you go.
Notes: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, Quantaray 70-300mm lens. 1/400s, f/10.0, ISO 800. Focal length: 300mm.
Check out Flattr.com, it’s an awesome way to support the websites you love. Then, Flattr me!
Popularity: 25%
November 2, 2009 – Daisy
Posted by Dave in Flowers, Macro, Picture of the Day on November 2, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
http://www.davefry.net/rate/index.php?viewimage=395
Hey everyone, hope you all had a great Halloween! I had a bit of a hard time today deciding whether to end that first sentence with a period or an exclamation mark. Using the ! seemed to come off a bit too cheeseball-enthusiastic for me, but the period just sounded grumpy. I went back and forth, but you can all see the final choice.
This is another daisy. That’s my assumption anyway. I know very little about flowers, but it sure seems like they are all some kind of daisy or another, so that’s usually my default guess. If I’m wrong (about this or any other picture) please do let me know. When I say something like “this is a [whatever]” and end the sentence with a period (not an exclamation mark) it comes off as me saying it like it’s a fact, when in reality I’m really not that confident in the information. (The exclamation mark has a different connotation entirely. That’s like me being proud of the fact that it’s a [whatever], as if I’m a 2 year old kid who just learned how to say the word. Maybe I’ll try that one tomorrow. This is a FIRETRUCK! No Dave, that’s a burrito.)
In photography, there are a lot of rules. And, like all of the best ones, they are all made to be broken. By that I mean, there are generally a lot of general things to do that generally make a picture more interesting. You can follow them to the letter every time, and you’ll usually get a pretty great shot. But sometimes you can break the rule, and the result can be pretty striking. Today’s example is the rule of thirds. The first thing they teach you in photography class (I assume… I haven’t been in a photography class since freshman year of high school, and I honestly have no idea what they told us) is that you should try to put the subject of your photo at either the 1/3rd or 2/3rds mark. As in, either one third of the way from right-to-left, or one third of the way from left-to-right. Or top-to-bottom. Or, even better, both! As in, if you draw imaginary horizontal and vertical lines at the 1/3rd and 2/3rds marks, put your subject at one of the four intersections. Make sense? It’s really amazing how much that little tidbit can help an image.
That being said, look at this picture! Oh my effing god, how fun is that?! It’s… RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE! Because I broke the rule. Because you can do that sort of thing. Because the rule was meant to be broken. Get it?
The key takeaway here is, you really can’t do anything “wrong”. Except not take pictures. That’s wrong. So don’t do that.
Notes: Canon EOS Rebel XT, Quantaray 70-300 mm Macro lens. 1/400s, f/5.6, ISO 400. Focal length: 300 mm.
Check out Flattr.com, it’s an awesome way to support the websites you love. Then, Flattr me!
Popularity: 5%
