Flower Macro Shots!
- Thread starter Blitz
- Start date
- Status
Finally some macro shots outside my usual boring battery, handphones shots
Pity my macro range can only up to 20cm Comments pls, thanks!
I
iiioloiii
Guest
Blitz,
All these flower shots (except the yellow flower) looks more like a closeup to me. Go nearer. The flowers won't bite. If you're saying that those shots were composed at the min 20cm range, then I'm pretty sure the pink flowers were taken with wide angle lens.
All these flower shots (except the yellow flower) looks more like a closeup to me. Go nearer. The flowers won't bite. If you're saying that those shots were composed at the min 20cm range, then I'm pretty sure the pink flowers were taken with wide angle lens.
Hi iiioloiii,
I'm unable to go any nearer. I think I'm within the 20cm range cos when I go any nearerer, the subject becomes very blur....
Anything I've done wrong here?
Originally posted by mpenza
you might have to move back a bit. experiment to find the sweet spot for macro
Hee....
ok I'm quite confused over this actually.
When the macro range say is 20cm, does it includes that when I hold the camera back and zoom in 3x?
Or does it means that I still can go in at 20cm, and zoom in 3x without losing focus?
Sorry if I sound confusing...thanks!
actually you can do some tests at home ... try this setup
try ur dc with no zoom (32mm) to 3x zoom (96mm) with macro mode to focus on the object ... measure the distance ..
you will find that the min distance for no zoom macro mode is 20cm .. , to get closer than 20 cm .. you need to get a closeup filter ..
click here to read more abt HOYA closeup filter .
A close-up filter will allow you to focus much closer in normal focussing mode too. For e.g, under normal focussing mode at full 8x optical zoom, my camera can focus only about 1m away. using a close-up +4 filter, I can focus at 25cm (1000mm/4) with full zoom. A close-up +10 filter will allow me to focus at 10cm away.
I would like to add that taking macros or closeups is not simply about getting close. We should not focus our efforts on getting close and forget all the other elements that make a good photo, such as subject, colour, composition, idea, mood, message etc..
Not everything will look good under close scrutiny. Sometimes the picture may look better if the photographer takes a step back.
To iiioloiii, please let me know how you differentiate between a close-up and a macro shot. What is needed for a pictured to be qualified as macro instead of close-up?
To Blitz,
Try to look at the flower subjects and ask yourself what is it about the flowers that appeals to you. Look at the flowers from different angles and find the one that brings out its beauty the most. Choose another flower if you have to. Sometimes, it's not just the flower itself, but how it and its suurounding compliment each other. Ultimately, you are trying to tell the people who view your pictures how you see the flowers. Not just to show them a picture of a flower.
Hope you treat my comments as constructive.
Not everything will look good under close scrutiny. Sometimes the picture may look better if the photographer takes a step back.
To iiioloiii, please let me know how you differentiate between a close-up and a macro shot. What is needed for a pictured to be qualified as macro instead of close-up?
To Blitz,
Try to look at the flower subjects and ask yourself what is it about the flowers that appeals to you. Look at the flowers from different angles and find the one that brings out its beauty the most. Choose another flower if you have to. Sometimes, it's not just the flower itself, but how it and its suurounding compliment each other. Ultimately, you are trying to tell the people who view your pictures how you see the flowers. Not just to show them a picture of a flower.
Hope you treat my comments as constructive.
I
iiioloiii
Guest
The best answer is already in this thread. Look thru carefully all the flower pics again and tell me which one reveals the subject's (flower) details. The key word here is DETAILS.
Didn't I say that earlier?
Becareful with your advice. I'm not so sure how many members here can agree with you on this. You might want to seek professional opinion on this or read and find out more about macro photography first. What you said here can be true in most types of photography except macro and tight glamour photography. And btw you've forgotten to mention (or perhaps didn't realise) the most important element in photography...........Lights
To iiioloiii,
You did not mention anything about the key word "DETAILS" in your original post where you disqualified all but one of the pictures as being true macro shots. I believe Blitz and the rest of the readers deserve more clarification from you to support your claim. That is why I asked how you differentiate between Macro and close-up.
In your opinion then, how much detail is required, in order for a picture to be qualified as a macro shot?
Or, are you actually refering to the magnification level (maybe you did not realise)?
I did some search and come across this differentiation between Macro and Close-up in www.dpreview.com:
"In strict photographic terms the word Macro means the optical ability to produce a 1:1 or higher magnification of an object on the film negative, that is get very close (not always physically) to a very small object (a bit like a microscope does, but obviously not as much). The second type of lens is a close-up lens, normally anything less than 1:2 is seen as close-up (rather than Macro).
On digital cameras there is often a Macro Focus mode, this switches the auto focus system to attempt to focus on subjects much closer to the lens to take interesting shots of small objects. The macro abilities of a digital camera vary, and most should be ashamed of calling the focus mode "macro" (it should strictly be called "close up"). We measure macro ability (of cameras with non-interchangeable lenses) in our reviews as the ability of the lens to get the best possible frame coverage.
The clear outright winner (without add-on lenses) are Nikon's Coolpix 950 and 990 both of which can produce amazingly close shots which can clearly be called macro. The 990 for example can get close enough to fill it's 2048 x 1536 frame with just 0.7" of an object.. Very close"
So you are right to say that the pictures are not really macros. I believe Blitz uses an Oly C2040Z. The CCD size is 0.3 by 0.4 inches (0.5 inch diagonal). For the yellow flower picture to be qualified as a macro shot, following the 1:1 magnification definition, the actual mesaurement of the part of the flower captured should be less than 10.16mm.
I am always careful about what I say. And I still stand firm on my statement that Macros and Closeups are not just about getting close, if your intentions are to take a visually appealing picture.
I would like to read about how, in macro and tight glamour photography, getting close is all there is to making a good picture. Please provide a reference.
By the way, what is tight glamour photography?
Photography is "The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces" (American Heritage Dictionary). Light is the basic element of photography. Non of the other elements that I have listed can exisit wthout light. So mentioning light is like saying you need sound to make good music - redundant. So I have not "forgotton to mention" light, and I am well aware that it is the basic elements of photography.
You did not mention anything about the key word "DETAILS" in your original post where you disqualified all but one of the pictures as being true macro shots. I believe Blitz and the rest of the readers deserve more clarification from you to support your claim. That is why I asked how you differentiate between Macro and close-up.
In your opinion then, how much detail is required, in order for a picture to be qualified as a macro shot?
Or, are you actually refering to the magnification level (maybe you did not realise)?
I did some search and come across this differentiation between Macro and Close-up in www.dpreview.com:
"In strict photographic terms the word Macro means the optical ability to produce a 1:1 or higher magnification of an object on the film negative, that is get very close (not always physically) to a very small object (a bit like a microscope does, but obviously not as much). The second type of lens is a close-up lens, normally anything less than 1:2 is seen as close-up (rather than Macro).
On digital cameras there is often a Macro Focus mode, this switches the auto focus system to attempt to focus on subjects much closer to the lens to take interesting shots of small objects. The macro abilities of a digital camera vary, and most should be ashamed of calling the focus mode "macro" (it should strictly be called "close up"). We measure macro ability (of cameras with non-interchangeable lenses) in our reviews as the ability of the lens to get the best possible frame coverage.
The clear outright winner (without add-on lenses) are Nikon's Coolpix 950 and 990 both of which can produce amazingly close shots which can clearly be called macro. The 990 for example can get close enough to fill it's 2048 x 1536 frame with just 0.7" of an object.. Very close"
So you are right to say that the pictures are not really macros. I believe Blitz uses an Oly C2040Z. The CCD size is 0.3 by 0.4 inches (0.5 inch diagonal). For the yellow flower picture to be qualified as a macro shot, following the 1:1 magnification definition, the actual mesaurement of the part of the flower captured should be less than 10.16mm.
I am always careful about what I say. And I still stand firm on my statement that Macros and Closeups are not just about getting close, if your intentions are to take a visually appealing picture.
I would like to read about how, in macro and tight glamour photography, getting close is all there is to making a good picture. Please provide a reference.
By the way, what is tight glamour photography?
Photography is "The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces" (American Heritage Dictionary). Light is the basic element of photography. Non of the other elements that I have listed can exisit wthout light. So mentioning light is like saying you need sound to make good music - redundant. So I have not "forgotton to mention" light, and I am well aware that it is the basic elements of photography.
I
iiioloiii
Guest
Since this forum started I've tried my best to find time to browse this forum (and not HWZ anymore) and provide my pointers so others could improve and knowing how to. I've been taught by a respectible "sifu" long long time ago and I thought now is my time to repay that by giving my pointers and encouranging others to improve. And the only way for a busy person like me could do was to post comments and pointers to our very own Singapore photography forum. I would really love to meet up with you all photo enthusiast for an outdoor shooting session but I know very well that wish will never come true for me.
From the beginning, I've came across some members that welcomed and even told me that they were inspired by my words. Nevertheless I've also came across some who could at least reason out to me their circumstances and constrains when taking the shots. However, this is the first time (and I hope the last time) I have came across one who (I truly believe is not new to photography) take up his free time by challenging me over certain basic photography terms in the pretext of not fully understanding what is the definition.
You have explained your own strong perception and understanding of macro photography from the beginning. Your follow-up demand for explanation from me was obvious to me that you were not sincere or interested to know what you've known so well but rather as a further chance to take on a debate with me. That doesn't help but will only confuse Blitz further. He is seeking for improvement. Not to get everyones opinion on certain photography terms. May I suggest that if you have any questions for me, please post them in a new thread. Then it is at my pleasure to reply if I feel that the person is truly sincere to know what he was asking.
I believe to those who have came across my pointers on their pics, could see that my obvious intention here was to provide opinions and comments on how one person could improve on his photography skills. Of course everyone knows that photography is subjective but which pics qualify as macro photography or otherwise is not subjective. And it wasn't my intention or even expectation to waste my time here to participate or engage in any kind of debate over ones understanding on photography terms. Especially not with the one who challenged my understanding first and later refer to some references to support his facts. Of course I'm prepared and would certainly welcome to take on polite questions and explanations if the pics were posted by the member himself.
Could you try to find the definition yourself this time? (like what you did previously for macro and closeup?). I'm in no interest to go for further debates with you. I've came across some fly and damselfly pics taken by Chee Wee (moderator). I must say that he had displayed his understanding very well on what is macro photography. He is really good in that. You might want to ask him what qualify as good macro photography. Perhaps he could explain to you much better than me.
At the beginning, reading replies from the initial poster thanking my opinion in other thread was really encouranging me to try and spend more time in this forum. But for now I'm truly disheartened and dissappointed with this whole event. Perhaps I shall retreat from giving anymore comments or perhaps I should spend lesser effort in this forum from now on.
Roygoh,
I apologise if I have offended you in anyway. Unfortunately our understanding in photography was just too far different to be reconciled. For the benefits of other members who seek improvements and not confusions, I will not post any further reply to this thread.
From the beginning, I've came across some members that welcomed and even told me that they were inspired by my words. Nevertheless I've also came across some who could at least reason out to me their circumstances and constrains when taking the shots. However, this is the first time (and I hope the last time) I have came across one who (I truly believe is not new to photography) take up his free time by challenging me over certain basic photography terms in the pretext of not fully understanding what is the definition.
Roygoh,
You have explained your own strong perception and understanding of macro photography from the beginning. Your follow-up demand for explanation from me was obvious to me that you were not sincere or interested to know what you've known so well but rather as a further chance to take on a debate with me. That doesn't help but will only confuse Blitz further. He is seeking for improvement. Not to get everyones opinion on certain photography terms. May I suggest that if you have any questions for me, please post them in a new thread. Then it is at my pleasure to reply if I feel that the person is truly sincere to know what he was asking.
I believe to those who have came across my pointers on their pics, could see that my obvious intention here was to provide opinions and comments on how one person could improve on his photography skills. Of course everyone knows that photography is subjective but which pics qualify as macro photography or otherwise is not subjective. And it wasn't my intention or even expectation to waste my time here to participate or engage in any kind of debate over ones understanding on photography terms. Especially not with the one who challenged my understanding first and later refer to some references to support his facts. Of course I'm prepared and would certainly welcome to take on polite questions and explanations if the pics were posted by the member himself.
Roygoh,
Could you try to find the definition yourself this time? (like what you did previously for macro and closeup?). I'm in no interest to go for further debates with you. I've came across some fly and damselfly pics taken by Chee Wee (moderator). I must say that he had displayed his understanding very well on what is macro photography. He is really good in that. You might want to ask him what qualify as good macro photography. Perhaps he could explain to you much better than me.
At the beginning, reading replies from the initial poster thanking my opinion in other thread was really encouranging me to try and spend more time in this forum. But for now I'm truly disheartened and dissappointed with this whole event. Perhaps I shall retreat from giving anymore comments or perhaps I should spend lesser effort in this forum from now on.
Roygoh,
I apologise if I have offended you in anyway. Unfortunately our understanding in photography was just too far different to be reconciled. For the benefits of other members who seek improvements and not confusions, I will not post any further reply to this thread.
Hi hi...just wanna share a bit here
I hope I'm right to say that no one owns photography...beauty is still up to the eye of the beholder!
Although we don't see eye to eye on certain issues but I feel we shouldn't start making personal references simply based on a few posts...in fact for some, we don't even know one another so let's not jump to conclusions...
I hope I'm right to say that no one owns photography...beauty is still up to the eye of the beholder!
Although we don't see eye to eye on certain issues but I feel we shouldn't start making personal references simply based on a few posts...in fact for some, we don't even know one another so let's not jump to conclusions...
cheewee
New Member
Hi iiioloiii,
I am just a newbie in photography so I am surprised that you brought me into the picture. In fact, when this question of macro and close-up was brought up, I began to ponder upon it myself. I am glad people like your kindself and roygoh shared your opinions about it.
Community is all about sharing and we all know that ClubSNAP is trying to build a local photography community. A community requires the interaction and input of various users. Therefore, we will always have people with differing views or opinions.
Think of it this way, when someone takes their time to disagree with you, you can conclude that they are genuinely interested in the same things as you are. Therefore, we should always welcome the disagreement. Who knows, they might bring out some points that we never ponder upon?
Your postings show that you have good knowledge in the area of photography. I think many members will benefit from your participation in the forum. May I request that you continue to do so.
Thanks,
Chee Wee
I am just a newbie in photography so I am surprised that you brought me into the picture. In fact, when this question of macro and close-up was brought up, I began to ponder upon it myself. I am glad people like your kindself and roygoh shared your opinions about it.
Community is all about sharing and we all know that ClubSNAP is trying to build a local photography community. A community requires the interaction and input of various users. Therefore, we will always have people with differing views or opinions.
Think of it this way, when someone takes their time to disagree with you, you can conclude that they are genuinely interested in the same things as you are. Therefore, we should always welcome the disagreement. Who knows, they might bring out some points that we never ponder upon?
Your postings show that you have good knowledge in the area of photography. I think many members will benefit from your participation in the forum. May I request that you continue to do so.
Thanks,
Chee Wee
CALM DOWN.............CALM DOWN..................
Who is good? And who is better than who?
This is what I got to say:
Why are all of us here in this forum? Photography? Yes.........Photography......and fun. I bet 3/4 of the people in this forum is here mainly because we like to take pretty pictures and get more insight of photography and and and most important having FUN. And photography is fun and let's keep it that way.
Let's all take comments with good faith............we might have differences in view but let us not start attacking each other. As a photographer, when a comment is made always tell yourself: I would like to try out his method and compare the results. Whether agree or disagree is up to you. Be a man...............and not take things too hard.
Let's not bear hatred with each other....and that's the last thing the core members what in this forum. Instead, let's appreciate the effort the core members put into this fourm for all of us.
iiioloiii, roygoh.................how about a hand shake in your next post here?
I would like a hand shake with the both of you...........and all the wounderful people in here.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :angel:
I would like to put a small comment about macro:
Macro is the ability to magnify and in order to magnify we need to get close(but not always true)...................So the conclusion here is up to the both of you to make..
Happy Ending
Cheers!
Remember about the hand shake and be MAN enough to do it....
Who is good? And who is better than who?
This is what I got to say:
Why are all of us here in this forum? Photography? Yes.........Photography......and fun. I bet 3/4 of the people in this forum is here mainly because we like to take pretty pictures and get more insight of photography and and and most important having FUN. And photography is fun and let's keep it that way.
Let's all take comments with good faith............we might have differences in view but let us not start attacking each other. As a photographer, when a comment is made always tell yourself: I would like to try out his method and compare the results. Whether agree or disagree is up to you. Be a man...............and not take things too hard.
Let's not bear hatred with each other....and that's the last thing the core members what in this forum. Instead, let's appreciate the effort the core members put into this fourm for all of us.
iiioloiii, roygoh.................how about a hand shake in your next post here?
I would like a hand shake with the both of you...........and all the wounderful people in here.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :angel:
I would like to put a small comment about macro:
Macro is the ability to magnify and in order to magnify we need to get close(but not always true)...................So the conclusion here is up to the both of you to make..
Happy Ending
Cheers!
Remember about the hand shake and be MAN enough to do it....
- Status
Similar threads
