First one looks like a 'Millepertius',
second could be a Chicory or 'Laitue sauvage' (Cicerbita sp.)
(exact species is for both hard to tell from just a flower shot, especially for a beginner like me...)
These are both species that manage to flower in the hottest and driest months of the year
Remco
Peter, I do love blue flowers.... The second one is particularly pretty and you've captured it so crisply. I've never seen it before - fascinating, actually.
ok can someone define macro? I see lots of discrepancies when it comes to this term and I don't want to misuse the term....
Hi Kate,
A wonderful element of CiC (Cambridge in Color) is the tutorials that they have carefully assembled,
and made available to all. There is an excellent one on macro photography that should get you the
answer your after:
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...cro-lenses.htm
Mike
and, these very large threads are more like ongoing discussions and, back at the beginning, we decided that we weren't tremendously "picky" about it being true macro. Over in the buggy macro thread and that, oh, so scary spider thread, I think that they're more into the technically tiny macro world. (and, yes, I'm very tongue in cheek, here.)
Also, there are often individual's threads that go through that are more strictly macro. Here and here are two of mine.
Real macro would be 1:1 at least Katelyn, but not every lens can do that (and TBH, not every flower can be photographed like that if you aim for the whole flower instead of just a tiny detail). So what you will see in this thread mainly are macro and close-up shots.
Mike's link to macro camera lenses states it as follows: However, "macro" is often used loosely to also include close-up photography, which applies to magnifications of about 1:10 or greater. We'll use this loose definition of macro for the rest of the tutorial...
If you can live with that...
Thanks Peter.
There are only 4 things in that pic - the stalk, the pink and yellow bud behind it and the leaf. So it was either this square crop or a rectangular one to include the whole leaf and take out most of the stalk. It could have gone either way. Dave (or was it Donald) was saying to me in another thread that I should try different cropping so went square.
One other reason probably was that having the entire leaf would have given it more prominence and that may have detracted from the main subject and the overall balance.
Thank you Dave, this is one of my favourites so far this year. I don't usually get nice groupings but these grew that way which was very helpful and there was JUST enough foilage that I could get a nice background.
Thanks again for the feedback, I was beginning to doubt myself when no one commented.
Wendy