On Jan 7, 4:17*pm, HipsterKitteh HipsterKitteh.
wrote:
Update: The plant has now almost doubled is height, at 18cm tall.
[image:http://i.imgur.com/SEwzF.png]

--
HipsterKitteh

Better but still not in focus, kinda like not having your readers on
for us oldies... "it that an "e" or a "c"... Still no real ID data.
This maybe considered OT (still not as bad as the Ideolog's subterfuge
oft used), but ya gotta show clear pics, otherwise it remains a stab
in the dark for anyone to accurately ID and as I continuously harp
on... do put a reference point in the scene for scale.

Back to topic, looks like a stowaway and since you have a good starter
already going, why keep something you may already have and which
appears to be weakened? Looks to me look like it is stretching to the
light more than a seedling should, but that maybe within your present
norms. My stretchers rarely, if ever, make it out the G/H as much by
choice as their dying off.

Have you eliminated it being a mint also? I believe most, if not all
mint is square stemmed. Can't tell if this stem is square? The leaf
margin does not appear to be scalloped but it is still young. Also
looks variegated, but is it? Does it look like any other plants you
have started in your present batch? You should be able to tell
somewhat of the plant's details by now, or very soon, to see if they
compare to others of your plants. Some Cat mint Identification is
contained he http://www.ontarioweeds.com/weed.php?w=NEPCA

In the future if you are still unable to tame your auto focus, you
might try using a solid color board behind your subject, preferable a
mid-tone gray (black and white are not the best unless you know
lighting and your camera). Still, move the camera around until you
find your auto focus point somewhere on the plant’s actual plane or an
edge/margin, Perhaps move back and forth until it locks on solidly and
NO, you do not need to get a macro lens nor get w/in 2-3 inches of the
subject to get an great shot. Highly unlikely you can focus that close
without using the billows one person was talking and even then not
likely would you find anything that would adapt or fit on your camera.
So would you want to spend 2-300$ to retrofit a camera these days when
you can get a very good camera for that price point. They are
recalling nostalgia not reality. Image size for detail in this
context is also not that relevant. I tell new shooters... when you
don't understand the shot...shoot big and crop, ..fill the viewfinder
with the subject, not superfluousness "stuff". I harp on this because
I don't want people to believe you must move closer to get a detail
shot with their P&S. Still the offer stands.

Gunner

One of my sites I use for showing examples:
http://s704.photobucket.com/albums/ww46/Gunner_W3/
No image was shot closer than 0.7-1.0 meter.

,,,,, we'd need an image
where the 2 leaves on the small plant fill at least 320x200, or better
640x480.

Of course a camera without macro focus isn't going to get
close to that kind of image. *You'd need to be 2-3 inches from the
plant in question with a normal lens.

Strongly disagree with these statements. Can you explain why you find
these to be true?
Gunner

Thank you for your reply

I am fairly certain as to it not being more catnip as the leaves are nothing like the catnip's leaves or the seedling leaves and the stem is far hairier. I'll leave it to grow for a month or so then get back to here. I just posted initially to see if there was a common pest that would be easily identified, this not being the case I'l let it grow, if it survives despite it's stretch.

I will endeavour to achieve a better focused picture of the leaves, if I manage I will post them here.

HipsterKitteh said:



Update: The plant has now almost doubled is height, at 18cm tall. I
fiddled with my camera's setting and managed to get a better picture of
the leaves, it helps that the leaves have also grow a little bit.

[image: http://i.imgur.com/SEwzF.png]

Poor little sprout seems to have lost its cotyledons entirely, but
it is still struggling on. Needs a bit more growth to have any
chance to ID it, though.

--
Pat in Plymouth MI

"Yes, swooping is bad."

email valid but not regularly monitored

Gunner writes:

,,,,, we'd need an image
where the 2 leaves on the small plant fill at least 320x200, or better
640x480.

Of course a camera without macro focus isn't going to get
close to that kind of image. Â*You'd need to be 2-3 inches from the
plant in question with a normal lens.

Strongly disagree with these statements. Can you explain why you find
these to be true?

Why don't you be explicit as to what you disagree with?

Is it:
you'd want to see at least 64K pixels,
you need macro focus to get 64K pixels of the leaves
you need to be 2-3 inches away with a normal lens


--
Dan Espen

I never saw any cotyledons on the plant, none have fallen off as much as I can tell, indicative of there not being any which is incredibly odd if not impossible.

On Jan 9, 6:33*am, Dan Espen wrote:
Gunner writes:
,,,,, we'd need an image
where the 2 leaves on the small plant fill at least 320x200, or better
640x480.

Of course a camera without macro focus isn't going to get
close to that kind of image. *You'd need to be 2-3 inches from the
plant in question with a normal lens.

Strongly disagree with these statements. Can you explain why you find
these to be true?

Why don't you be explicit as to what you disagree with?

Is it:
* you'd want to see at least 64K pixels,
* you need macro focus to get 64K pixels of the leaves
* you need to be 2-3 inches away with a normal lens

--
Dan Espen


Again..YES! all three(3)x2. Please explain why I NEED...

Now, let me ask if you be so kind as to explain what is digital macro
and what is a normal lens in digital?
Do I really need 1:1 and if so, why? Are there any other ways the
man can get an Identifiable picture without your rules? If so, what
are they?

Gunner writes:

On Jan 9, 6:33Â*am, Dan Espen wrote:
Gunner writes:
,,,,, we'd need an image
where the 2 leaves on the small plant fill at least 320x200, or better
640x480.

Of course a camera without macro focus isn't going to get
close to that kind of image. Â*You'd need to be 2-3 inches from the
plant in question with a normal lens.

Strongly disagree with these statements. Can you explain why you find
these to be true?

Why don't you be explicit as to what you disagree with?

Is it:
Â* you'd want to see at least 64K pixels,
Â* you need macro focus to get 64K pixels of the leaves
Â* you need to be 2-3 inches away with a normal lens

--
Dan Espen


Again..YES! all three(3)x2. Please explain why I NEED...

Now, let me ask if you be so kind as to explain what is digital macro
and what is a normal lens in digital?
Do I really need 1:1 and if so, why? Are there any other ways the
man can get an Identifiable picture without your rules? If so, what
are they?

Why don't you just come out and state your views instead of trying
to beat mine down?

A normal lens in digital is that same concept as it was in film.
It's easy to look up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens

In photography and cinematography a normal lens, also called a
standard lens, is a lens that reproduces a field of view that
generally looks "natural" to a human observer under normal viewing
conditions, as compared with lenses with longer or shorter focal
lengths which produce an expanded or contracted field of view. Lenses
of shorter focal length are called wide-angle lenses, while
longer-focal-length lenses are referred to as long-focus lenses[1]
(with the most common of that type being the telephoto lenses).

I don't remember mentioning 1:1, I asked for 320x200 of the leaf.
The reason I asked for that is the original photo was of a shoot with
what looked like one set of true leaves (not the cotyledon). The leaves were
small at that. I estimated I'd need at least that much detail to have a
chance of identifying the plant.

How else can a plant be identified?

Lots of ways, stem shape, leaf pairing, color, where the OP lives.


--
Dan Espen

On Jan 11, 10:36*am, Dan Espen wrote:
Gunner writes:
On Jan 9, 6:33*am, Dan Espen wrote:
Gunner writes:
,,,,, we'd need an image
where the 2 leaves on the small plant fill at least 320x200, or better
640x480.

Of course a camera without macro focus isn't going to get
close to that kind of image. *You'd need to be 2-3 inches from the
plant in question with a normal lens.

Strongly disagree with these statements. Can you explain why you find
these to be true?

Why don't you be explicit as to what you disagree with?

Is it:
* you'd want to see at least 64K pixels,
* you need macro focus to get 64K pixels of the leaves
* you need to be 2-3 inches away with a normal lens

--
Dan Espen

Again..YES! * all three(3)x2. Please explain why I NEED...

Now, let me ask if you be so kind as to explain what is digital macro
and what is a normal lens in digital?
Do I really need 1:1 and if so, *why? *Are there any other ways the
man can get an Identifiable picture without your rules? If so, *what
are they?

Why don't you just come out and state your views instead of trying
to beat mine down?

A normal lens in digital is that same concept as it was in film.
It's easy to look up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens

* In *photography *and *cinematography *a *normal lens, *also *called *a
* standard *lens, *is *a lens *that *reproduces *a *field of *view *that
* generally *looks "natural" to *a human *observer under *normal viewing
* conditions, *as compared *with *lenses with *longer *or shorter *focal
* lengths which produce an expanded *or contracted field of view. Lenses
* of *shorter * focal *length * are *called *wide-angle * lenses, *while
* longer-focal-length *lenses are *referred to *as *long-focus lenses[1]
* (with the most common of that type being the telephoto lenses).

I don't remember mentioning 1:1, I asked for 320x200 of the leaf.
The reason I asked for that is the original photo was of a shoot with
what looked like one set of true leaves (not the cotyledon). *The leaves were
small at that. *I estimated I'd need at least that much detail to have a
chance of identifying the plant.

How else can a plant be identified?

Lots of ways, stem shape, leaf pairing, color, where the OP lives.

--
Dan Espen

Sooth those feathers old son. I just wanted to know if your
imperatives were based in fact or speculation. I believe you answered
that for me and I thank you for indulging an old dog. This crime scene
is getting way OT to investigate further..

Just know there is a danger in attempting to translate old school film
”think” to the myriad variables in digital, especially as sacrosanct
absolutes. Rather than limiting yourself at the start of a problem
with erroneous information, start with a bit of research on how
digital does what some consider "macro". I'm betting you will be in a
bit of disbelief at first. Run a search using the keywords: "digital
macro" and then read up on some of the articles, I suspect you will
come to know that digital language , for all it similarities, is not
the same as film language. It is just rough translations for us old
photogs to relate to a new language as it evolves. Until then it is
natural for one to continue to argue for what we think we know.

FYI, 1:1 is another term for "macro".

good day

Gunner writes:

On Jan 11, 10:36Â*am, Dan Espen wrote:
Gunner writes:
On Jan 9, 6:33Â*am, Dan Espen wrote:
Gunner writes:
,,,,, we'd need an image
where the 2 leaves on the small plant fill at least 320x200, or better
640x480.

Of course a camera without macro focus isn't going to get
close to that kind of image. Â*You'd need to be 2-3 inches from the
plant in question with a normal lens.

Strongly disagree with these statements. Can you explain why you find
these to be true?

Why don't you be explicit as to what you disagree with?

Is it:
Â* you'd want to see at least 64K pixels,
Â* you need macro focus to get 64K pixels of the leaves
Â* you need to be 2-3 inches away with a normal lens

--
Dan Espen

Again..YES! Â* all three(3)x2. Please explain why I NEED...

Now, let me ask if you be so kind as to explain what is digital macro
and what is a normal lens in digital?
Do I really need 1:1 and if so, Â*why? Â*Are there any other ways the
man can get an Identifiable picture without your rules? If so, Â*what
are they?

Why don't you just come out and state your views instead of trying
to beat mine down?

A normal lens in digital is that same concept as it was in film.
It's easy to look up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens

Â* In Â*photography Â*and Â*cinematography Â*a Â*normal lens, Â*also Â*called Â*a
Â* standard Â*lens, Â*is Â*a lens Â*that Â*reproduces Â*a Â*field of Â*view Â*that
Â* generally Â*looks "natural" to Â*a human Â*observer under Â*normal viewing
Â* conditions, Â*as compared Â*with Â*lenses with Â*longer Â*or shorter Â*focal
Â* lengths which produce an expanded Â*or contracted field of view. Lenses
Â* of Â*shorter Â* focal Â*length Â* are Â*called Â*wide-angle Â* lenses, Â*while
Â* longer-focal-length Â*lenses are Â*referred to Â*as Â*long-focus lenses[1]
Â* (with the most common of that type being the telephoto lenses).

I don't remember mentioning 1:1, I asked for 320x200 of the leaf.
The reason I asked for that is the original photo was of a shoot with
what looked like one set of true leaves (not the cotyledon). Â*The leaves were
small at that. Â*I estimated I'd need at least that much detail to have a
chance of identifying the plant.

How else can a plant be identified?

Lots of ways, stem shape, leaf pairing, color, where the OP lives.

--
Dan Espen

Sooth those feathers old son. I just wanted to know if your
imperatives were based in fact or speculation. I believe you answered
that for me and I thank you for indulging an old dog.

Okay.

This crime scene
is getting way OT to investigate further..

I don't know, macro photography and gardens?
Not as OT as a LOT of other stuff.

Just know there is a danger in attempting to translate old school film
�think� to the myriad variables in digital, especially as sacrosanct
absolutes.

I hope I didn't present any information I offered as absolutes.

Rather than limiting yourself at the start of a problem
with erroneous information, start with a bit of research on how
digital does what some consider "macro". I'm betting you will be in a
bit of disbelief at first.

Not really.

Run a search using the keywords: "digital
macro" and then read up on some of the articles, I suspect you will
come to know that digital language , for all it similarities, is not
the same as film language. It is just rough translations for us old
photogs to relate to a new language as it evolves. Until then it is
natural for one to continue to argue for what we think we know.

Well I did some searches for what that little "flower" setting does
and the best I came up with is:

The macro mode button, when pressed, switches the camera into a
special close focus mode and many allow the photographer to shoot less
than 10cm from the picture subject.

FYI, 1:1 is another term for "macro".

Yes, uniquely not suited for digital. Since film size used to
be a good measure of resolution but now we need to worry about
the number of pixels, not the area the sensor covers.

Back in the film days, I got as far as extension tubes.
Never did buy a ring flash.

I'm mostly using a Canon EOS now and it's interesting how many
options are available for digital macro photography but I'm
thinking extension tubes again.

I have to admit, I still can't figure out where you are coming
from. You started saying you disagree strongly but haven't
contradicted anything I've said.

I'm not an expert on macro photography and I've avoided getting
very technical on the subject but I still think if you are using
a consumer digital camera and the camera has no macro feature or
accessories, you're not going to get a good closeup.

--
Dan Espen

snips


I'm not an expert on macro photography and I've avoided getting
very technical on the subject but I still think if you are using
a consumer digital camera and the camera has no macro feature or
accessories, you're not going to get a good closeup.


I suspect that you'd be hard-pressed to find
a digital camera, in the last five years or so,
that doesn't have a close-focus option ...
.. down to four inches or so.
... even the $ 75. point-&-shoot digi-cams.
John T.


--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:02:28 -0500, wrote:

snips


I'm not an expert on macro photography and I've avoided getting
very technical on the subject but I still think if you are using
a consumer digital camera and the camera has no macro feature or
accessories, you're not going to get a good closeup.


I suspect that you'd be hard-pressed to find
a digital camera, in the last five years or so,
that doesn't have a close-focus option ...
.. down to four inches or so.
.. even the $ 75. point-&-shoot digi-cams.

Exactly. And 4 inches is way too close for capturing the details of a
small plant for purposes of identification, 2-3 feet is plenty close
enough... 4 inches is for IDing a mite on a leaf. But regardless,
what's important is to accurately frame what it is one wants to ID,
not to confuse the camera's microprocessor with extraneous elements,
and to maintain steadyness.

writes:

snips


I'm not an expert on macro photography and I've avoided getting
very technical on the subject but I still think if you are using
a consumer digital camera and the camera has no macro feature or
accessories, you're not going to get a good closeup.

I suspect that you'd be hard-pressed to find
a digital camera, in the last five years or so,
that doesn't have a close-focus option ...
.. down to four inches or so.
.. even the $ 75. point-&-shoot digi-cams.

I guess all the OP has to do is get a bit
closer to the part of the plant
someone might be able to identify
and use the macro focus button.

Just checked.
I have 3 digital cameras.
Only the newest one has a macro focus option.

Guess I need to get out more.

--
Dan Espen

snips

I'm not an expert on macro photography and I've avoided getting
very technical on the subject but I still think if you are using
a consumer digital camera and the camera has no macro feature or
accessories, you're not going to get a good closeup.


I suspect that you'd be hard-pressed to find
a digital camera, in the last five years or so,
that doesn't have a close-focus option ...
.. down to four inches or so.
.. even the $ 75. point-&-shoot digi-cams.


Just checked.
I have 3 digital cameras.
Only the newest one has a macro focus option.


That's surprising to me.
Perhaps the other two don't need a special macro
focus function - if they naturally focus to a foot or so (?)
www.imaging-resource.com/MFR1.HTM
This web site has archived many many digi-cam reviews
and specifications - for reference. I just randomly picked
a few cheap point-and-shoots - they all had macro ability.
John T.


--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:30:30 -0500, wrote:

snips

I'm not an expert on macro photography and I've avoided getting
very technical on the subject but I still think if you are using
a consumer digital camera and the camera has no macro feature or
accessories, you're not going to get a good closeup.


I suspect that you'd be hard-pressed to find
a digital camera, in the last five years or so,
that doesn't have a close-focus option ...
.. down to four inches or so.
.. even the $ 75. point-&-shoot digi-cams.


Just checked.
I have 3 digital cameras.
Only the newest one has a macro focus option.


That's surprising to me.
Perhaps the other two don't need a special macro
focus function - if they naturally focus to a foot or so (?)
www.imaging-resource.com/MFR1.HTM
This web site has archived many many digi-cam reviews
and specifications - for reference. I just randomly picked
a few cheap point-and-shoots - they all had macro ability.

As I indicated previously macro focus is not used for plant ID, it's
more useful for capturing plant anatomy.

http://www.ehow.com/how_4570111_what...l-cameras.html