Up Close

You can probably tell that I'm enthralled with my new, spendy, close-up lens by now, but I find it fascinating to put it on the camera and go out and explore a whole new world.

Perhaps I'm merely indulging some childhood fantasies about becoming a biologist and spending my life studying plants. Perhaps I'm compensating for the fact that I never had access to one of those high-fangled electron microscopes that allow you to see the beauty at a microscopic level.

For whatever reason, I find being able to blow up a flower the size of my thumb into an 11 x 14 print enchanting, so I guess you'll be seeing a few more of these for awhile, at least until I tire of my new toy.

Besides, I think it's amazing how beautiful these plain-jane looking flowers are when examined closely, all the more remarkable when you consider how many of them there are.

4 thoughts on “Up Close

  1. Strictly speaking, many of these aren’t “wildflowers,” Shelley, and since I live so close to the park and its “gardens” I wouldn’t count on any of them qualifying as a wildflower, Shelley, except, of course, for the pretty obnoxious weed the county agent told me to destroy before it spread.

  2. I thought you must have some new lens or camera equipment to produce all the extreme close-ups that have appeared since the re-design. Then I thought perhaps they’re courtesy of your newfound photoshop skills. Glad to know most of it’s camera-based. What kind of camera and lens are you using? Digital or analog? I only ask because I’m thinking of moving beyond our simple point-and-shoot toward something more versatile, and your photos are always so lovely.

  3. I’m using a Canon Digital Rebel, andru. Generally, just use the lens that came with the camera, as it’s a nice compromise between a close up lens and an all-purpose lens.

    I just bought a Tamron 90mm 1:28 Macro 55 lens to improve my ability to take closeups.

    I’m still using Photoshop to tweak almost all the shots, though. I purposely underexpose all my photos by one stop, a technique I learned in a Photoshop book for using the RAW setting on the camera. An underexposed negative is more apt to contaon information that you can bring out through digital manipulation.

    I also apply selective sharpening or blurring using Photoshop to emphasize the main subject, thought the new Macro lens takes care of much of the blurring automatically.

What do you think?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.