"Kate Morgan" wrote in message
. ..
snip interesting stuff
(If you wish to decide for yourself if this technique actually
works for me
or I am in fact talking total rubbish, go here
http://littleurl.com/?01k5 )



Rachael
No I dont think for one moment that you are talking rubbish :-)

I cannot cope with the technical side of things, I use a digital and
just wander round the garden snapping away at whatever catches my
eye,
mostly the flowers and recording what and where I have got plants, I
tend to lose stuff!

If you are using a digital camera, all the talk of tri- and unipods is
almost certainly irrelevant, since any self-respecting digital camera
would be equipped with electronic anti-shake features. I have taken
perfectly sharp hand-held pictures at a focal length equivalent to 200
mm on a 35 mm camera. This would have been quite impossible with a
film camera.

Franz

Franz

"Kate Morgan" wrote in message
. ..
snip interesting stuff
(If you wish to decide for yourself if this technique actually
works for me
or I am in fact talking total rubbish, go here
http://littleurl.com/?01k5 )



Rachael
No I dont think for one moment that you are talking rubbish :-)

I cannot cope with the technical side of things, I use a digital and
just wander round the garden snapping away at whatever catches my
eye,
mostly the flowers and recording what and where I have got plants, I
tend to lose stuff!

If you are using a digital camera, all the talk of tri- and unipods is
almost certainly irrelevant, since any self-respecting digital camera
would be equipped with electronic anti-shake features. I have taken
perfectly sharp hand-held pictures at a focal length equivalent to 200
mm on a 35 mm camera. This would have been quite impossible with a
film camera.

Franz

Franz

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
"Rachael of Nex, the Wiccan Rat" wrote in message
...
[...]
I only use a tripod or monopod for landscapes (or very close studio
macro
work where the depth of field is paper thin), and the monopod isn't
really
worth having unless conditions are quite bright, due to the
possibilty of
side to side movement, IME. In bright conditions your basic modern
point and
shoot camera should be able to judge the shutter speed and aperture
well
enough not to get much camera shake without support anyway as more
light
means shorter shutter speed (usually, if you let the camera choose
for
you) - so less time for the dreaded camera shake to occur. If you've
got
digital of course then take as many shots as you like - some of them
are
bound to be good. It's the technique I use, anyway !

(If you wish to decide for yourself if this technique actually works
for me
or I am in fact talking total rubbish, go here
http://littleurl.com/?01k5 )

But getting down to slight side-to-side movement is already reducing
the shake to within practical limits, since plant photography usually
likes a wide aperture and hence high shutter speed. Try also a good
length of bath-plug chain with a short 1/4" Whitworth bolt on the end:
the bolt goes in the camera bush, of course, and you just stand on the
free end of the chain, and tauten.

Or, like me, you just forget to bring the camera anyway. D'oh!

Mike.

********
Mike!, We are gardening friends and we are not to quarrel over this,
but, with respect, - you have not mentioned the "depth of field^
required which is the third or fourth consideration when quickly
planning , - before the shot, - our masterpiece!.
As regards camera shake , with a unipod you have its leg at the right
length, put the camera to your eye, with each thumb stuck out backwards
and steadied against the cheekbones. The camera cannot move
any-which-way except if you sneeze! (/:^)
I never used a 33mm camera. (I have one now, of course). I used a 2-and
a-quarter-inch by three-and-a-quarter-inch Mamya Press with rear bellows
as well as at front folding camera which was hinged back to allow
straightening up of the verticals of buildings.. The other was a
5inch-by-four-inch , and also a two-and-a-quarter by two-and-a-quarter
inch Rollieflex. You can't print 16 by 20inch pictures with a 33mm
camera, - they won't blow-up sharp during processing.
We are discussing here, nearby subjects so a 33mm camera is fine.
For panoramic pictures we need at least a 300 to 400m lens to collapse
the distance otherwise all we'll see is a thin horizontal line in the
distance on the print.
Proof of this is, look at any panoramic scene through binoculars. The
distance is right up near you, - the foreground is collapsed and it
makes a lovely scene. Also the distance is raised so if there are
mountains in the background it lifts them up and makes tem much more
dominating and dramatic.
Comments stated about the digital camera's versatility is correct. There
is practically no cost to take the pictures, so you can bang away at
random.
Any road up, lets each and all of us keep on clicking the button and
enjoying ourselves as we think fit.
So! ..But getting back to growing beans and peas..........!
Keep happy!.
Doug.

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
"Rachael of Nex, the Wiccan Rat" wrote in message
...
[...]
I only use a tripod or monopod for landscapes (or very close studio
macro
work where the depth of field is paper thin), and the monopod isn't
really
worth having unless conditions are quite bright, due to the
possibilty of
side to side movement, IME. In bright conditions your basic modern
point and
shoot camera should be able to judge the shutter speed and aperture
well
enough not to get much camera shake without support anyway as more
light
means shorter shutter speed (usually, if you let the camera choose
for
you) - so less time for the dreaded camera shake to occur. If you've
got
digital of course then take as many shots as you like - some of them
are
bound to be good. It's the technique I use, anyway !

(If you wish to decide for yourself if this technique actually works
for me
or I am in fact talking total rubbish, go here
http://littleurl.com/?01k5 )

But getting down to slight side-to-side movement is already reducing
the shake to within practical limits, since plant photography usually
likes a wide aperture and hence high shutter speed. Try also a good
length of bath-plug chain with a short 1/4" Whitworth bolt on the end:
the bolt goes in the camera bush, of course, and you just stand on the
free end of the chain, and tauten.

Or, like me, you just forget to bring the camera anyway. D'oh!

Mike.

********
Mike!, We are gardening friends and we are not to quarrel over this,
but, with respect, - you have not mentioned the "depth of field^
required which is the third or fourth consideration when quickly
planning , - before the shot, - our masterpiece!.
As regards camera shake , with a unipod you have its leg at the right
length, put the camera to your eye, with each thumb stuck out backwards
and steadied against the cheekbones. The camera cannot move
any-which-way except if you sneeze! (/:^)
I never used a 33mm camera. (I have one now, of course). I used a 2-and
a-quarter-inch by three-and-a-quarter-inch Mamya Press with rear bellows
as well as at front folding camera which was hinged back to allow
straightening up of the verticals of buildings.. The other was a
5inch-by-four-inch , and also a two-and-a-quarter by two-and-a-quarter
inch Rollieflex. You can't print 16 by 20inch pictures with a 33mm
camera, - they won't blow-up sharp during processing.
We are discussing here, nearby subjects so a 33mm camera is fine.
For panoramic pictures we need at least a 300 to 400m lens to collapse
the distance otherwise all we'll see is a thin horizontal line in the
distance on the print.
Proof of this is, look at any panoramic scene through binoculars. The
distance is right up near you, - the foreground is collapsed and it
makes a lovely scene. Also the distance is raised so if there are
mountains in the background it lifts them up and makes tem much more
dominating and dramatic.
Comments stated about the digital camera's versatility is correct. There
is practically no cost to take the pictures, so you can bang away at
random.
Any road up, lets each and all of us keep on clicking the button and
enjoying ourselves as we think fit.
So! ..But getting back to growing beans and peas..........!
Keep happy!.
Doug.

I cannot cope with the technical side of things, I use a digital and
just wander round the garden snapping away at whatever catches my
eye,
mostly the flowers and recording what and where I have got plants, I
tend to lose stuff!

If you are using a digital camera, all the talk of tri- and unipods is
almost certainly irrelevant, since any self-respecting digital camera
would be equipped with electronic anti-shake features. I have taken
perfectly sharp hand-held pictures at a focal length equivalent to 200
mm on a 35 mm camera. This would have been quite impossible with a
film camera.

What you say is almost certainly correct, people have been and are very
helpful with their comments re. flowers and photography. I think that
maybe at the beginning of the thread I did not say I was using a
digital, however no matter, one of my daughters is interested in
photography but was not very interested in gardening but she is now
peering at my plants with great interest and that makes me smile:-)

kate

I cannot cope with the technical side of things, I use a digital and
just wander round the garden snapping away at whatever catches my
eye,
mostly the flowers and recording what and where I have got plants, I
tend to lose stuff!

If you are using a digital camera, all the talk of tri- and unipods is
almost certainly irrelevant, since any self-respecting digital camera
would be equipped with electronic anti-shake features. I have taken
perfectly sharp hand-held pictures at a focal length equivalent to 200
mm on a 35 mm camera. This would have been quite impossible with a
film camera.

What you say is almost certainly correct, people have been and are very
helpful with their comments re. flowers and photography. I think that
maybe at the beginning of the thread I did not say I was using a
digital, however no matter, one of my daughters is interested in
photography but was not very interested in gardening but she is now
peering at my plants with great interest and that makes me smile:-)

kate

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...

[snip]

But getting down to slight side-to-side movement is already reducing
the shake to within practical limits, since plant photography
usually
likes a wide aperture and hence high shutter speed.

Why do you suggest that plant photography usually likes a wide
aperture?

Franz

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
"Rachael of Nex, the Wiccan Rat" wrote in message
...
[...]
(If you wish to decide for yourself if this technique actually works for
me
or I am in fact talking total rubbish, go here
http://littleurl.com/?01k5 )

OK, forget about the bath-plug chain: you're good. Hope you don't mind
if I put the site in "Favourites".

LOL. ;-) Thanks, and no, I don't mind at all. I've become alot happier for
people to see my stuff now that I am getting better at it.
I'm not sure the bathplug and bolt would work with my digital as it goes
anyway - digitals seem to require proprietary shutter releases (which I keep
telling myself I will get around to buying one day ...)

Rachael

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
"Rachael of Nex, the Wiccan Rat" wrote in message
...
[...]
(If you wish to decide for yourself if this technique actually works for
me
or I am in fact talking total rubbish, go here
http://littleurl.com/?01k5 )

OK, forget about the bath-plug chain: you're good. Hope you don't mind
if I put the site in "Favourites".

LOL. ;-) Thanks, and no, I don't mind at all. I've become alot happier for
people to see my stuff now that I am getting better at it.
I'm not sure the bathplug and bolt would work with my digital as it goes
anyway - digitals seem to require proprietary shutter releases (which I keep
telling myself I will get around to buying one day ...)

Rachael

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Kate Morgan" wrote in message
. ..
snip interesting stuff
(If you wish to decide for yourself if this technique actually
works for me
or I am in fact talking total rubbish, go here
http://littleurl.com/?01k5 )



Rachael
No I dont think for one moment that you are talking rubbish :-)

I cannot cope with the technical side of things, I use a digital and
just wander round the garden snapping away at whatever catches my
eye,
mostly the flowers and recording what and where I have got plants, I
tend to lose stuff!

If you are using a digital camera, all the talk of tri- and unipods is
almost certainly irrelevant, since any self-respecting digital camera
would be equipped with electronic anti-shake features.

Sadly not true IME. I have a Nikon Coolpix 5700 - which is widely regarded
as being quite good as digital manual control cameras go (short of a true
dslr). It suffers horribly from camera shake at the longer length zooms if
handheld without prior thought - this is a feature of longer zooms though
and is an issue one finds with alot of digitals with long zooms.

Olympus are the dog's nuts when it comes to image stablisation - they really
are good. Most point and shoot digitals don't suffer the problem much
either - but in certain conditions, you just won't get the shots you wanted
because the cameras metering can't cope with the conditions. Some of the
higher end digitals (like mine) can assume the photographer has some basic
knowledge of difficult shooting conditions - like low light, long zooms,
etc - the more manual control you get, the more chance you have of messing
it up :-) There is only so much camera shake the hardware can cope with -
you have to do the rest !



Rachael

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Kate Morgan" wrote in message
. ..
snip interesting stuff
(If you wish to decide for yourself if this technique actually
works for me
or I am in fact talking total rubbish, go here
http://littleurl.com/?01k5 )



Rachael
No I dont think for one moment that you are talking rubbish :-)

I cannot cope with the technical side of things, I use a digital and
just wander round the garden snapping away at whatever catches my
eye,
mostly the flowers and recording what and where I have got plants, I
tend to lose stuff!

If you are using a digital camera, all the talk of tri- and unipods is
almost certainly irrelevant, since any self-respecting digital camera
would be equipped with electronic anti-shake features.

Sadly not true IME. I have a Nikon Coolpix 5700 - which is widely regarded
as being quite good as digital manual control cameras go (short of a true
dslr). It suffers horribly from camera shake at the longer length zooms if
handheld without prior thought - this is a feature of longer zooms though
and is an issue one finds with alot of digitals with long zooms.

Olympus are the dog's nuts when it comes to image stablisation - they really
are good. Most point and shoot digitals don't suffer the problem much
either - but in certain conditions, you just won't get the shots you wanted
because the cameras metering can't cope with the conditions. Some of the
higher end digitals (like mine) can assume the photographer has some basic
knowledge of difficult shooting conditions - like low light, long zooms,
etc - the more manual control you get, the more chance you have of messing
it up :-) There is only so much camera shake the hardware can cope with -
you have to do the rest !



Rachael

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...

[snip]

But getting down to slight side-to-side movement is already reducing
the shake to within practical limits, since plant photography
usually
likes a wide aperture and hence high shutter speed.

Why do you suggest that plant photography usually likes a wide
aperture?

Less dof ? Good for isolating the subject if it's in situ with others I
suppose. This depends on your style though and the shooting conditions and
the length of your lens and the light and the ...
However, at high macros you need at the dof you can get and even the
narrowest aperture is often not enough as at high magnification the dof will
be paper thin even then. Then again, I doubt most photographers are obsessed
with making three millimetre wide flowers look like large roses. ;-) !


Rachael

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...

[snip]

But getting down to slight side-to-side movement is already reducing
the shake to within practical limits, since plant photography
usually
likes a wide aperture and hence high shutter speed.

Why do you suggest that plant photography usually likes a wide
aperture?

Less dof ? Good for isolating the subject if it's in situ with others I
suppose. This depends on your style though and the shooting conditions and
the length of your lens and the light and the ...
However, at high macros you need at the dof you can get and even the
narrowest aperture is often not enough as at high magnification the dof will
be paper thin even then. Then again, I doubt most photographers are obsessed
with making three millimetre wide flowers look like large roses. ;-) !


Rachael

"Doug." wrote in message ...
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
[...]
Or, like me, you just forget to bring the camera anyway. D'oh!

Mike.

********
Mike!, We are gardening friends and we are not to quarrel over this,
[...]

Last thing I would quarrel about is my far-from-genius level
photography! Note my final remark as a confession of incompetence.

Mike (all thumbs, and only one of them faintly greenish in good
light).

"Doug." wrote in message ...
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
[...]
Or, like me, you just forget to bring the camera anyway. D'oh!

Mike.

********
Mike!, We are gardening friends and we are not to quarrel over this,
[...]

Last thing I would quarrel about is my far-from-genius level
photography! Note my final remark as a confession of incompetence.

Mike (all thumbs, and only one of them faintly greenish in good
light).