Boredom Redeux

[chauncey]

Considerably more care taken with this version.

[JamesScott86]

Beautiful shot - so pretty too.

[Shadowman]

Very nice.

[ashcroft]

I can see now how you set it up. Clever way to do it. I'm going to have to try this. This version is better than the last one, I think.

You might want to have a look at the work of Brian Valentine, he's based in the UK and does a lot of these droplet shots with flower. You might get some good ideas. http://lordv.smugmug.com/Macrophotog...9114&k=Kkx2wD5

[Jill]

That is sooo good, I wish I could do that.
What lens was used? (magnificatiion)
That is just awesome.
Jill

[chauncey]

I can see now how you set it up

Your seeing three images blended together...could not get the SS high enough to freeze the droplet
as I insist on shooting at ISO 100. So I bended a virgin wine glass base with that of a syringe laying
atop with droplet emerged and made the syringe go away, then moved all that onto the original orchid
background in the proper position as I screwed-up the initial background.

Currently, most of my stuff is shot tethered using a 180 macro lens with/without extension tubes
and/or 2X TC, stacking and merging allows large prints if desired...this one is 28" wide @ 300 ppi.

Am familiar with Brian's work as he hangs out here...http://photography-on-the.net/forum/

[Suzan J]

Hi Chauncey: I really like this shot. It's quite beautiful and the colours are lovely. Thanks for the explanation as I would have scratched my head for days trying to figure out how it was done.

[JR1]

Blasted show off

[Nicks Pics]

Very neat, well done. Still not sure how you got the reflection of the flower in the drop?

[Downrigger]

Considerably more care taken with this version.

And it shows. Extraordinary! The soft background "Y" adds...

[Wavelength]

Outstanding

[ashcroft]

...could not get the SS high enough to freeze the droplet as I insist on shooting at ISO 100.

Did you use flash? Have you got high speed synch?

[chauncey]

No flash unit but, as I use a monitor image as a backdrop...how would that flash influence that aspect?

[ashcroft]

No flash unit but, as I use a monitor image as a backdrop...how would that flash influence that aspect?

You can fire the flash at up to 1/8000s on the camera. Normally with flash you are restricted to the synch speed - 1/200s on a Canon, but with HSS you just go beyond that to whatever you need.

Or... if no HSS then put the camera on manual mode at about 1/125s and shoot in a darkish room. There will be no ambient light recorded but the flash will fire very fast if it's close to the subject and on low power. It will fire at about 1/1000s at least. So your 'exposure' camera speed will be about 1/1000s even though it's set to have the shutter open for 1/125s. The flash needs to be diffused for a shot like this.

[IzzieK]

William....absolutely gorgeous! I am still waiting for the response to how you got the orchids into the drop question from Nick's question...is that a separate shot that you blended in the drop? Enough to boggle my little brain...

[Rita]

I like this much more than the other one you did like it. I also am curious of the reflection in the drop. A few times I have tried to get a reflection of something in a water droplet and it always comes out unclear. How do you get the reflection so clear?

[csa mt]

This is amazing; very beautiful! Thanks for sharing it; the water drop is wonderful!

[chauncey]

It's 3:30AM and a bout of insomnia has me in it's grips giving me a chance to ponder the
meaning of it all/why we're here/and all that other horse hockey.

I posted this image on POTN, LuLa, as well as here, it would be safe to say that the reception elsewhere
has been similar to what you all have voiced. These accolades are leaving me at a loss for words...
a rarity to say the least.

And therein lies the rub...the problem is that I don't recognize what you're seeing...I see nothing but a
reasonably pretty picture...a far cry from the offered feedback.

Alas, maybe someday that sight will come. Meantime, I'll just depend on you folks...many thanks.

[NorthernFocus]

...the problem is that I don't recognize what you're seeing...I see nothing but a
reasonably pretty picture...a far cry from the offered feedback...

One of the cool things about photography is also one of the biggest challenges for us. The viewer only has what appears in the two dimensional image for the brain to process. The photographer has all of the additional information in memory that go along with capturing/processing the image. One can take a photo of water trickling over mossy stones in a urban ditch and the viewer can't differentiate it from a similar image shot at the headwaters of the Amazon. But there is a huge difference in the mind of the photographer.

If one is interested in producing images with public appeal, it is crucial to understand the phenomenon and to develop the ability to look at one's own images dispassionately. Otherwise just shrug it off in amazement and work on the next shot

This is a cool shot. I'm always amazed at this sort of imagery. Nicely done.

[ashcroft]

One can take a photo of water trickling over mossy stones in a urban ditch and the viewer can't differentiate it from a similar image shot at the headwaters of the Amazon. But there is a huge difference in the mind of the photographer.

Over the years I've been to several movie locations in the UK, just as part of a normal visit. I'm always amazed at the ordinariness, even blandness of some places in 'real life' compared to how they look on the screen. Even if you watch a 'how it was made' of a movie, you can get the same effect. I think as a photographer you need to be aware of that - and exploit it.