Macro flower photographs

I do not have a macro lens yet, but have experimented with taking very close pictures. Perhaps they could be called "pseudo-macro". The Nikon 105mm AF-S VR Macro is the one that I am looking at to buy. Camera: Nikon D7000. Still learning how to use the camera, my first DSLR, have owned it almost a year. The photos I see on this thread are beautiful, hope I can do as well.

This flower is in my garden - not sure what it is, it came from a hummingbird-friendly wildflower medly.

http://i50.tinypic.com/2yux45j.jpg

This flower is a ground cover called Purple Dragon (real name is something like Dead Nettle). It is very small and dainty.

http://i50.tinypic.com/ekqjr9.jpg

You are getting pretty close already with those photographs Susan, but if you like macro and even closer, then that Nikkor 105mm VR is a great lens to use with the D7000.

@ Michelle: you got it right, it's wortel spelled backwards. Only Dutch speakers (sorry for that generalization) will get it.
@ Franci: that beautiful orchid reminds me of my niece on Curacao, who grows orchids. I would love to take some photos there, when they are in bloom.

Thanks Peter, I just saw the orchid in a shop and thought of the nice pictures I could take. No doubt, I would love to see your pictures of you nice's cultivation.

Susan, I also waited before buying the macro lens and took pictures with the zoom, but now I use almost only the Nikkor 105 mm - with a D7000 too.

Franci, I love the camera. It was the best I could afford - an FX camera was out of my budget range. Same with macro lenses - there are others more expensive, but this one is the best I can afford. In the long run, it is not really the camera or the lens that determines how the photo turns out, it is the person wielding those tools! I am loving getting to know how to use them.

Orchids are so varied, they are fascinating subjects. I have not tried to grow them, however, stick mostly to succulents, a few cacti, and some philodendron-type house plants. My garden plan is designed around attracting hummingbirds and butterflies, but it is not fully developed yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letrow

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8379/8...8ce3ce6c_b.jpg

Ageing beauty

---

I love the textures and the highlights. Nice color combos!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michelleh

I have only noticed now, the importance of making sure that the flower has all its petals and that they are perfect. Image 2 has 2 petals that have been damaged. There were others that were so badly eaten I could not post them.

---

I read a biography of Velasquez when I was a child. I think it was in that book where he stressed the importance of recording what you see. The world is highly imperfect. If we all only posted perfect images, then I think our images become dull. I think it's the Japanese who maintain that we only gain perfection through our embrace of imperfection.

One week apart

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8371/8...3fd03f88_b.jpg
I took a picture of this rose on the 2nd when it was fresh out of the flowershop

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8089/8...539a1b04_b.jpg
and another photo exactly a week after the first one

Looking at the two, I personally like the second photo best, because more of the rose's petal structure is visible

Both photographed at ISO100 and F/14; the first exposed for 2 seconds, the second for 1/20sec. I guess the sun on the second photo made most of the difference, probably also in showing the structure off better.

Peter, your photos are so good that I can almost smell the fragrance coming off of your roses and I do love the scent that some roses give off.
Ciao
Michelle

This rose was bought (one day after) Valentine's Day.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2nk6g0n.jpg

The picture was shot using the light painting technique.

Andrea

Hi Peter, I totally agree with you that the second shot of the yellow rose is better that the first. Just a question: in the first shot the petals look too smooth, almost plastic-like. Can it be the case that due to some minor movement or tremor, details averaged to a smooth 0 during the long exposure time?

Andrea, Nice work with the red here....very lush. Myself, I would likely go in a little tighter but it is beautiful either way.

@ Francesca; the rose looks very sharp in itself, so I don't think that it was smoothed out. I do agree with you though, but the only reason I can think of is the freshness of that rose. Other roses photographed on that day look smoother as well, but this yellow just seems to be more smooth even.

@ Andrea: nice work on that rose with light painting. I like the effect you got.

My flower shots to share with all members. Thanks for viewing. Your C & C will be appreciated. Thanks:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7052/7...eae53412_b.jpg
#01

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7074/7...9b0a6ae8_b.jpg
#02

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7225/6...551b81dc_b.jpg
#03

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8345/8...82331334_b.jpg
#04

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7106/7...b5daaaae_b.jpg
#05

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7061/6...64646c41_b.jpg
#06

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeeperman

Andrea, Nice work with the red here....very lush. Myself, I would likely go in a little tighter but it is beautiful either way.

---

Paul thanks for the comment. I actually tried a tighter crop, but I was not satisfied with it. Finally I took this one because I like the red spot of rose emerging from a black background. By comparing different cropping I find that a slight larger black background drives your eyes directly on the red spot.

Cheers
Andrea

Added:
Here is a tighter crop to compare with.

http://i48.tinypic.com/11s1o53.jpg

Andrea

Dear Peter,
thanks for the comment. When you can use it, I found that the light painting technique offers you the possibility of using low ISO and hing f-stop, without the need of setting up the all the lighting stuff (softbox, flash,...) . You have to make some test, but the result can be really good.

Cheers
Andrea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kris

Dear Peter,
thanks for the comment. When you can use it, I found that the light painting technique offers you the possibility of using low ISO and hing f-stop, without the need of setting up the all the lighting stuff (softbox, flash,...) . You have to make some test, but the result can be really good.

Cheers
Andrea

---

Well, that is worth a try. What I did a while ago was make a photo in a dark environment. Without using your light technique I used a long (30 seconds) exposure and F/8. The result is quite good, but different from your photo.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8502/8...0429c527_b.jpg

ISO160, F/8 and 30 sec exposure.
As you see the rose is well lighted, but with almost no light source being present.
Your technique has the advantage of isolating the subject more, so I'll experiment with that as well. How long did you expose?

From an English churchyard with a Canon G12 a few snowdrops....

http://i45.tinypic.com/t5gec9.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letrow

Well, that is worth a try. What I did a while ago was make a photo in a dark environment. Without using your light technique I used a long (30 seconds) exposure and F/8. The result is quite good, but different from your photo.
...
ISO160, F/8 and 30 sec exposure.
As you see the rose is well lighted, but with almost no light source being present.
Your technique has the advantage of isolating the subject more, so I'll experiment with that as well. How long did you expose?

---

Dear Peter your shot is really nice, I really like it. I'll post some taken in a similar setup. In this case I wanted to experiment the light painting technique for flower photographs.

This shot was taken in the evening, when you can easily have a dark room. I mounted the camera on a tripod and composed the rose to frame it with a black seamlees background. I used ISO 100 and manual setting for the camera with f/13. The exposure time is not so relevant because it is the time the curtain is open and you have for "painting". For this shot I used 15 seconds to have enough time to paint. The real exposure time is given by how long you illuminate the subject with a lamp. So you can actually have different exposure times on a sigle shot. It is really as painting on the subject. Once I have done all this, I switched off the light, pressed the shutter button and started to paint.

Tip: If you use autofocus, once you have focused the subject set the camera to manual focus, to avoid having the camera trying to refocus when you paint with light.

Cheers
Andrea

Dear Peter here are a couple of shots taken with long exposure.

http://i47.tinypic.com/rlkett.jpg
For this Aging Beauty I used ISO 100, f/8 and 0.8 sec with a 35mm lens. The exposure was not as long as your because the white rose was reflecting enough light. For comparison here is her friend, the red rose. The shot was taken in the same light condition with the same lens, ISO and f-number, but the exposure time is now 6.0 sec. Also consider the loss of rendering of reds in the sRGB space.

http://i50.tinypic.com/k04xsy.jpg

The result is clearly different from what you get using light painting. With this I do not mean one is better than the other. They just give different results. This is why I was curious of experimenting light painting.

Cheers
Andrea

PS.
Our florist told me that the name of the roses are: Mondial, the white, and Freedom, the red.

Andrea, I like the structure in the petals of those roses. I am still not sure in my experiments whether that detail is partly caused by the longer exposure or the roses' age. I like it though.
Definitely something to try out now and then with indoor flowers. The colours and everything look different, but still beautiful when compared to exposures in normal daylight.