The Bugs and Blooms of Summer; Outstanding Subjects for Nature Photographers and Nature Lovers
community » Discussions » Category » Photography & Art » Discussion » The Bugs and Blooms of Summer; Outstanding Subjects for Nature Photographers and Nature Lovers
I'm afraid to say this A Mac thinking it may give you the big head, but honestly those are some of the best photos I've ever seen. The clarity is absolutely magnificent. Just kidding about the big head but not about the photos. I know you are fully aware of how good they are.
Five or six years ago I was hiking with a friend along a trail on a ridge. The trail was a fire-break and was wide enough for a fire truck, but just barely. The areas around the trail were lush and green due to a wet winter. That day there were thousands and thousands of Painted Lady butterflies. As we walked along the trail the view from the corner of my eye was the Painted Ladies flying along with us. I knew at the time it was an optical illusion but I really enjoyed it.
A question, if you would. In the last few days I've been trying to get some shots of flowers, however, when I take them close up, the wind always moves the flower just enough to blur the shot. I suspect that the shutter speed is too slow. Is this likely to be the problem and will I have to open the F-Stop wider, if I make the speed faster? Camera is a Fuji E-550. Thanks.
No problem in using a fast shutter speed and a wider aperature because that will decrease the depth of field and the subject itself will stand out with a blurred background, which makes the subject itself the prime focus.
A question, if you would. In the last few days I've been trying to get some shots of flowers, however, when I take them close up, the wind always moves the flower just enough to blur the shot. I suspect that the shutter speed is too slow. Is this likely to be the problem and will I have to open the F-Stop wider, if I make the speed faster? Camera is a Fuji E-550. Thanks.
No question that wind, even a light breeze will cause motion blur, and while the obvious answer of using a faster shutter speed IS the answer, there are some tradeoffs and impediments to doing so.
1) Unless you have a "fast" lens with a maximum aperture of 2.8 or larger (usually an expensive item), your other alternative is to bump up the ISO/ASA (light sensitivity setting) to 400, 800 or higher, but in any event, use your lens' widest aperture. As Buzz indicated, this will both give faster shutter speeds and keep the background blurred.
2) Higher ISO/ASA numbers increase the graininess of your images
So, here's a better solution -- USE YOUR CAMERA'S FLASH OR A FLASH UNIT! Ordinarily these will allow you shutter speeds from 1/60 second to 1/250 second (depending on your equipment and other settings) and you can usually shoot with a lower ISO/ASA.
Try it -- use a tripod so that shaky hands don't add to a blur situation.
Far out Mac. Thanks. I'm able to do that since, last night, I finally did what I should have done when I bought the camera used. Downloaded the manual from Fuji. It tells me exactly how to go about doing the things you suggested using the controls on that particular model. I'll let you know how it works out.
TTGA, it's not manly to read directions. Fumble around for a couple of years, than ask a buddy to help you, without anyone else knowing that you were doing it.
As always Mac, just gorgeous. I especially liked the Painted Lady, too. They are so delicate looking that it is amazing what they do! Thanks! Wonderful talent!
Actually, I've done just about that. Used it on Automatic setting and got some reasonably nice shots of general subjects. Now, though, I'm trying for some more specialized stuff and have to get more technical, so I guess I'd better read the manual. Glad they translated it; my Japanese isn't as good as it should be.
I've been practicing and here's what I've been coming up with. First, I tried opening the aperture (it will open to 8), but I found that, when I did that, the shutter speed automatically slowed down and I got extreme underexposures. The same thing happened when I manually increased the shutter speed; the camera automatically closed the aperture. I'm still trying to figure out how to make this camera use a high speed and open aperture. Eventually, I'll figure it out. So, I took your advice and used the flash unit. The blurring from the wind is gone but I do get reflection when shooting close to the subject from the flash itself (I've been trying to minimize that by using dark backgrounds and different angles)
I've also used the computer program to decrease the brightness level a bit and to crop down to the actual image that I want.
Next I tried to minimize the reflection from the flash by shooting from 4-6 feet away using the zoom lens, set out to the maximum optical zoom setting.
Then, I used the crop feature on the computer to digitally zoom into the part that I wanted.
Obviously not the greatest quality, but I have eliminated the wind shake. Lots of practice to go. Notice that these flowers are not particularly dramatic subjects. My neighbor has some that would be much nicer in his back yard. These are from a hanging pot on my porch that I've set down on the deck. I'm using them for practice because I can control distances and brace the camera against furniture to eliminate hand shake, which I can't do at the neighbor's house. Unfortunately, some years ago, my tripod broke a leg and I had to shoot it.
Still practicing. As I get the hang of this camera, it'll get better (nowhere close to what yours are, though).
Your thinking things through is excellent and in time, much of what you do now will be done spontaneously.
I like that you're analyzing the aperture/shutter speed relationship and noting the cause and effect.
One way to minimize the bounce back of the flash to the lens is to shoot at an angle to the subject rather than head on as ANGLE OF INCIDENCE = ANGLE OF REFLECTION. I take almost all of my bird photos through a double pane of glass -- but no bounce back because the angle bounces away from my lens at an opposite angle away from the lens.
What you said about using the double pane of glass gave me an idea. I wrote up a detailed post about it...and then my %@#$# modem went down and I lost it before it could post. The essence of it was that I'm going to see the local windshield repair shop about getting a small piece of car windshield and try taking flash shots through that. Car windshields are designed to cut glare by changing the refraction qualities of the glass. Maybe it'll work or maybe it'll distort the image; only one way to tell, by trying it and seeing what happens.
See if you can find a circular polarizer for your lens. That's what they're designed to do. And even a polarizer will not keep a flash bounce back out of your image if the angle-to-subject from flash is head on.
What's the diameter of the lens you use most often, I might have an extra one I can give you.
The camera isn't that sophisticated. Only one lens (non detachable). The barrel measures 1 1/4 ", but there are no lugs or anything to hook anything to. Electronically, it's quite good, but physically, it's designed to be small and easy to carry at the expense of versatility.
The camera isn't that sophisticated. Only one lens (non detachable). The barrel measures 1 1/4 ", but there are no lugs or anything to hook anything to. Electronically, it's quite good, but physically, it's designed to be small and easy to carry at the expense of versatility.
Check the lens cap -- the underside -- it may have a number like 56mm, etc. . That's the diameter of the lens it covers. Then check to see if the lens has a thread (for screwing on filters) at the front edge.
In any event, subjects that reflect light such as water, leaves that are waxy, glass and highly-glazed ceramic objects, some flowers, eyes -- each can present a challenge with regard to unwanted (usually overexposed/washed out) picture areas. When setting up a shot, look corner-to-corner through the viewfinder before pressing the shutter. This serves at least two purposes -- identifying potential distracting elements that will compete with and take away from your main subject, and, identifying high contrast areas that might throw off your camera's light metering.
Sometimes just moving a step or two and shooting a subject from a different angle can make a difference; sometimes shooting it from several different angles and keeping the winner(s) is a good strategy. No one but you has to see the losers -- I trash as many shots as I keep!
Keep shooting; every click of the shutter brings you one click closer to where you want to be. And when you get there, keep learning, as you will find that you always get better yet, if in no other way, than in how consistently you take winners.
Feel free to ask questions -- there are a number of good photographers here on NT. Don't be shy about asking for critiques -- we all have to get it wrong before we get it right -- take it from a self-taught photographer (who sometimes still gets it wrong).
Nope, the lens is polished metal, as smooth as you can get. No place to screw anything on or attach anything. I think it was designed to be used as is, with some sophistication in the electronics but none in the camera body itself. In some ways, at my level of experience, I regard that as a good thing. Every time I want to get a specialized shot, like an extreme close up, it presents me with a problem in setting it up. Whenever I have to solve those problems, I learn something new (with a high level of help from you and the other folks here, for which I thank you enormously).
I trash as many shots as I keep!
I can assure you Mac, that, to get the shots that I showed you, I trashed a great deal more than a 1 to 1 ratio. I took about 50 shots of the same subject, using various settings and keeping records of what worked and what didn't. Back in the days of film cameras, a friend told me that film was like ammunition...expendable, and not to be left in the camera from one Christmas to another. He was right, of course, but he was a semi-pro, who would go through ten or twelve rolls of film in a week (and develop them himself). The cost, in both money and time, would have been prohibitive for me unless I was going to do it as a business.
I LOVE DIGITAL CAMERAS. If this were a film camera, the cost would have been about fifty bucks for film and development, and the experimentation that I did to get these few shots would have taken about three weeks. With the digital, the only cost was to recharge the batteries and it only took a few hours. I am now hooked and can afford to continue learning about it and having fun with it. One thing for sure, the camera will now join the items that go with me wherever I go. My belt's getting crowded, I didn't carry that much stuff when I was a cop, but, except for the sidearm, I have a lot more fun with what I carry now.
Click on the pics -- I think you'll like them!
Really lovely Mac! Of course I love the painted lady.... since I can always tell a painted from every other butterfly/sarc.
But really they are all beauties.
Happy to know that taxonomically-speaking, we're on the same Zinnia (so-to-speak).
Magnificent photos, as usual.
I'm afraid to say this A Mac thinking it may give you the big head, but honestly those are some of the best photos I've ever seen. The clarity is absolutely magnificent. Just kidding about the big head but not about the photos. I know you are fully aware of how good they are.
Thank you Sixpick; I am deeply flattered.
Amazingly beautiful.
My grandmother warned us within a inch of our lives, never, ever harm or try to catch a butterfly, they carried messages from the Creator.
Rest assured that I didn't cross grandma...I valued my life.
Five or six years ago I was hiking with a friend along a trail on a ridge. The trail was a fire-break and was wide enough for a fire truck, but just barely. The areas around the trail were lush and green due to a wet winter. That day there were thousands and thousands of Painted Lady butterflies. As we walked along the trail the view from the corner of my eye was the Painted Ladies flying along with us. I knew at the time it was an optical illusion but I really enjoyed it.
Love your work A.Mac.
Mac,
A question, if you would. In the last few days I've been trying to get some shots of flowers, however, when I take them close up, the wind always moves the flower just enough to blur the shot. I suspect that the shutter speed is too slow. Is this likely to be the problem and will I have to open the F-Stop wider, if I make the speed faster? Camera is a Fuji E-550. Thanks.
No problem in using a fast shutter speed and a wider aperature because that will decrease the depth of field and the subject itself will stand out with a blurred background, which makes the subject itself the prime focus.
No question that wind, even a light breeze will cause motion blur, and while the obvious answer of using a faster shutter speed IS the answer, there are some tradeoffs and impediments to doing so.
1) Unless you have a "fast" lens with a maximum aperture of 2.8 or larger (usually an expensive item), your other alternative is to bump up the ISO/ASA (light sensitivity setting) to 400, 800 or higher, but in any event, use your lens' widest aperture. As Buzz indicated, this will both give faster shutter speeds and keep the background blurred.
2) Higher ISO/ASA numbers increase the graininess of your images
So, here's a better solution -- USE YOUR CAMERA'S FLASH OR A FLASH UNIT! Ordinarily these will allow you shutter speeds from 1/60 second to 1/250 second (depending on your equipment and other settings) and you can usually shoot with a lower ISO/ASA.
Try it -- use a tripod so that shaky hands don't add to a blur situation.
Let us know how you make out.
I'm not a good dancer either, but I can tell when someone is doing a great job dancing.
Absolutely beautiful, Mac! Love the butterflies (
how'd you know?
), the Painted Lady, especially!
As always, thank you for sharing your talents with us...
Far out Mac. Thanks. I'm able to do that since, last night, I finally did what I should have done when I bought the camera used. Downloaded the manual from Fuji. It tells me exactly how to go about doing the things you suggested using the controls on that particular model. I'll let you know how it works out.
TTGA,
Looking forward to your sharing your successes!
TTGA, it's not manly to read directions. Fumble around for a couple of years, than ask a buddy to help you, without anyone else knowing that you were doing it.
As always Mac, just gorgeous. I especially liked the Painted Lady, too. They are so delicate looking that it is amazing what they do! Thanks! Wonderful talent!
Actually, I've done just about that. Used it on Automatic setting and got some reasonably nice shots of general subjects. Now, though, I'm trying for some more specialized stuff and have to get more technical, so I guess I'd better read the manual. Glad they translated it; my Japanese isn't as good as it should be.
Mac,
I've been practicing and here's what I've been coming up with. First, I tried opening the aperture (it will open to 8), but I found that, when I did that, the shutter speed automatically slowed down and I got extreme underexposures. The same thing happened when I manually increased the shutter speed; the camera automatically closed the aperture. I'm still trying to figure out how to make this camera use a high speed and open aperture. Eventually, I'll figure it out. So, I took your advice and used the flash unit. The blurring from the wind is gone but I do get reflection when shooting close to the subject from the flash itself (I've been trying to minimize that by using dark backgrounds and different angles)
Next I tried to minimize the reflection from the flash by shooting from 4-6 feet away using the zoom lens, set out to the maximum optical zoom setting.
Still practicing. As I get the hang of this camera, it'll get better (nowhere close to what yours are, though).
TTGA,
Your thinking things through is excellent and in time, much of what you do now will be done spontaneously.
I like that you're analyzing the aperture/shutter speed relationship and noting the cause and effect.
One way to minimize the bounce back of the flash to the lens is to shoot at an angle to the subject rather than head on as ANGLE OF INCIDENCE = ANGLE OF REFLECTION. I take almost all of my bird photos through a double pane of glass -- but no bounce back because the angle bounces away from my lens at an opposite angle away from the lens.
Try it.
And nice going and thanks for posting your work!
Gorgeous impatiens!!! Good work, dear TTGA!
They are all wonderful, dear A. Mac! I loved the painted lady especially! They live here, too!
Mac,
What you said about using the double pane of glass gave me an idea. I wrote up a detailed post about it...and then my %@#$# modem went down and I lost it before it could post. The essence of it was that I'm going to see the local windshield repair shop about getting a small piece of car windshield and try taking flash shots through that. Car windshields are designed to cut glare by changing the refraction qualities of the glass. Maybe it'll work or maybe it'll distort the image; only one way to tell, by trying it and seeing what happens.
See if you can find a circular polarizer for your lens. That's what they're designed to do. And even a polarizer will not keep a flash bounce back out of your image if the angle-to-subject from flash is head on.
What's the diameter of the lens you use most often, I might have an extra one I can give you.
The camera isn't that sophisticated. Only one lens (non detachable). The barrel measures 1 1/4 ", but there are no lugs or anything to hook anything to. Electronically, it's quite good, but physically, it's designed to be small and easy to carry at the expense of versatility.
TTGA,
Check the lens cap -- the underside -- it may have a number like 56mm, etc. . That's the diameter of the lens it covers. Then check to see if the lens has a thread (for screwing on filters) at the front edge.
In any event, subjects that reflect light such as water, leaves that are waxy, glass and highly-glazed ceramic objects, some flowers, eyes -- each can present a challenge with regard to unwanted (usually overexposed/washed out) picture areas. When setting up a shot, look corner-to-corner through the viewfinder before pressing the shutter. This serves at least two purposes -- identifying potential distracting elements that will compete with and take away from your main subject, and, identifying high contrast areas that might throw off your camera's light metering.
Sometimes just moving a step or two and shooting a subject from a different angle can make a difference; sometimes shooting it from several different angles and keeping the winner(s) is a good strategy. No one but you has to see the losers -- I trash as many shots as I keep!
Keep shooting; every click of the shutter brings you one click closer to where you want to be. And when you get there, keep learning, as you will find that you always get better yet, if in no other way, than in how consistently you take winners.
Feel free to ask questions -- there are a number of good photographers here on NT. Don't be shy about asking for critiques -- we all have to get it wrong before we get it right -- take it from a self-taught photographer (who sometimes still gets it wrong).
Nope, the lens is polished metal, as smooth as you can get. No place to screw anything on or attach anything. I think it was designed to be used as is, with some sophistication in the electronics but none in the camera body itself. In some ways, at my level of experience, I regard that as a good thing. Every time I want to get a specialized shot, like an extreme close up, it presents me with a problem in setting it up. Whenever I have to solve those problems, I learn something new (with a high level of help from you and the other folks here, for which I thank you enormously).
I can assure you Mac, that, to get the shots that I showed you, I trashed a great deal more than a 1 to 1 ratio. I took about 50 shots of the same subject, using various settings and keeping records of what worked and what didn't. Back in the days of film cameras, a friend told me that film was like ammunition...expendable, and not to be left in the camera from one Christmas to another. He was right, of course, but he was a semi-pro, who would go through ten or twelve rolls of film in a week (and develop them himself). The cost, in both money and time, would have been prohibitive for me unless I was going to do it as a business.
I LOVE DIGITAL CAMERAS. If this were a film camera, the cost would have been about fifty bucks for film and development, and the experimentation that I did to get these few shots would have taken about three weeks. With the digital, the only cost was to recharge the batteries and it only took a few hours. I am now hooked and can afford to continue learning about it and having fun with it. One thing for sure, the camera will now join the items that go with me wherever I go. My belt's getting crowded, I didn't carry that much stuff when I was a cop, but, except for the sidearm, I have a lot more fun with what I carry now.
Gorgeous as usual Mac. Thanks for sharing your work !