Post your photography!!
- Thread starter uofmtiger
- Start date
Got out of the apartment and checked out the cherry trees. I haven't used the new flashes outside of the macro duties so there's going to be a bit of learning curve there. I used the silicone diffuser that came with the flashes but I'm thinking I'm not going to be using that setup again. The images turned out way too soft. I have a ring attached to the front of the 90mm macro I used and mounted two flashes on it.
And a few more. Overall these are ok, but DoF and focus isn't quite where it should be. I'm not quite on my game. I was shooting with AF on, but everything else was manual, including the flashes. That's mainly because I couldn't figure out how to enable TTL on the transmitter. heh.
There's a fly in this flower in the lower bud. I didn't notice it at the time, It has a bright orange eye that really catches your attention.
These flowers (and I have no idea as to what they are) seem to attract bugs. I didn't notice the one in this shot, either. I'm not sure if it is alive or not. On the left side there's another fly or more likely a wasp of some sort.
There's a fly in this flower in the lower bud. I didn't notice it at the time, It has a bright orange eye that really catches your attention.
These flowers (and I have no idea as to what they are) seem to attract bugs. I didn't notice the one in this shot, either. I'm not sure if it is alive or not. On the left side there's another fly or more likely a wasp of some sort.
A smaller thunderstorm rolled through in the early evening last night. It was the perfect setup in that it didn't go directly overhead, but rather skirted along the north side of Madison at the closest.
One camera got the bulk of the shots, which were to the northwest and north. I think I might have gone a little too heavy on the f18 aperture I used on one of the cameras. I saw some strikes with it, but they were faint. Some of that is due to fog/rain rolling in with the storm, but the shots were underexposed too.
A few of these shots were very close to being blown out, or heavily overexposed on the lightning. It's always a guess as to how you should set up your camera. Underexposed means you'll potentially miss the distant lightning strikes, overexposed means you'll get the distant ones but blow out the close ones. I was able to manage the exposure in post.
This last one is the classic lightning strike on a church, although I don't think it actually hit the church. It looks like it more than likely hit something north of the church on the shore of Lake Mendota.
One camera got the bulk of the shots, which were to the northwest and north. I think I might have gone a little too heavy on the f18 aperture I used on one of the cameras. I saw some strikes with it, but they were faint. Some of that is due to fog/rain rolling in with the storm, but the shots were underexposed too.
A few of these shots were very close to being blown out, or heavily overexposed on the lightning. It's always a guess as to how you should set up your camera. Underexposed means you'll potentially miss the distant lightning strikes, overexposed means you'll get the distant ones but blow out the close ones. I was able to manage the exposure in post.
This last one is the classic lightning strike on a church, although I don't think it actually hit the church. It looks like it more than likely hit something north of the church on the shore of Lake Mendota.
There were some bumblebees bouncing from flower to flower on the cherry trees, but the blooms are far enough off the ground it's hard to get a good shot of them, and I wasn't ready for the speed involved, either. You tend to forget how fast they are. I did manage to get one ok shot.
I might check them out sometime today. It's a little cooler and a bit windy today. Cooler temps slow down insects and bees so there might be some decent opportunities.
I might check them out sometime today. It's a little cooler and a bit windy today. Cooler temps slow down insects and bees so there might be some decent opportunities.
mhedges
Super Member
I thought I'd post another from yesterday's shoot. These cherry blossoms just scream 'SPRING!'
I thought about what I'd mentioned about the not getting the DoF and focusing right. This image turned out better than most. But, I was shooting with a 90mm macro lens, which means you're getting closer than you would with a non-macro lens (or rather, that's what I end up doing), which results in shorter DoF and not as much being in focus. I guess it all depends on what you're trying to accomplish, and the 90mm probably wasn't the better choice for just general flower/plant images where I'm not really concerned about getting close - but that's what I was doing.
I'm going to use my 70-350 APS-C G lens next. It covers a nice range and is a reasonably sharp lens too. It's not a large aperture lens, but for what I'm doing that's fine. There is some vignetting when using that lens on a FF body, but it's not nearly as much as you would expect. I'll crop the image, and with a high MP sensor, that works out well.
I also have a FF Sony 70-300 that has problems holding the zoom when the camera is at angles where gravity pulls the zoom in or out. It's an old used lens, but I didn't really notice it being a problem when I was shooting bees with it last year.
Here it is - SPRING! (hey, it's Wisconsin. It arrives later here) I like the effect of shooting up into the sky with the flash. Should have changed the angle to eliminate the background branch. I'll keep that in mind for the next time.
I thought about what I'd mentioned about the not getting the DoF and focusing right. This image turned out better than most. But, I was shooting with a 90mm macro lens, which means you're getting closer than you would with a non-macro lens (or rather, that's what I end up doing), which results in shorter DoF and not as much being in focus. I guess it all depends on what you're trying to accomplish, and the 90mm probably wasn't the better choice for just general flower/plant images where I'm not really concerned about getting close - but that's what I was doing.
I'm going to use my 70-350 APS-C G lens next. It covers a nice range and is a reasonably sharp lens too. It's not a large aperture lens, but for what I'm doing that's fine. There is some vignetting when using that lens on a FF body, but it's not nearly as much as you would expect. I'll crop the image, and with a high MP sensor, that works out well.
I also have a FF Sony 70-300 that has problems holding the zoom when the camera is at angles where gravity pulls the zoom in or out. It's an old used lens, but I didn't really notice it being a problem when I was shooting bees with it last year.
Here it is - SPRING! (hey, it's Wisconsin. It arrives later here) I like the effect of shooting up into the sky with the flash. Should have changed the angle to eliminate the background branch. I'll keep that in mind for the next time.
Last edited:
mhedges
Super Member
A few from my return trip to the cherry trees. Used the 70-350 AFS-C lens. Got some decent shots, but that's not a good choice for shooting flowers so much. The working distance is long, too.
I did figure out how to set TTL on the flash transmitter. After my experience today, I'm thinking that manual is a better approach. Need to take some more shots and figure out the settings a bit more, however. Started with AF, but halfway through I abandoned it for manual focus. AF for flowers seems to be a bit lazy.
I did figure out how to set TTL on the flash transmitter. After my experience today, I'm thinking that manual is a better approach. Need to take some more shots and figure out the settings a bit more, however. Started with AF, but halfway through I abandoned it for manual focus. AF for flowers seems to be a bit lazy.
mhedges
Super Member
Mr Creosote
Super Member
