Inspiring Photo: miniature cactus flower #9691147

miniature cactus flower

Uploaded: January 22, 2010 11:23:40

Description

Shutter speed: 1/80.00 F-stop: 4.8
ISO speed: 400

Exif: F Number: 4.8, Exposure Bias Value: 0.00, ExposureTime: 1/80 seconds, Flash: did not fire, compulsory flash mode, ISO: 400, White balance: Auto white balance, FocalLength: 71.50 mm, Model: DSC-R1

Comments

Dale Hardin January 22, 2010

I took your advise on re-shooting this flower. I had mentioned in the other entry that the entire section shown was about two inches tall. I was wrong. The entire section shown is about 3/4 of one inch. Based on that the flower would be less then 1/4 inch in width. No wonder I couldn't see if it was in focus. :o) #1229890

Jeff E Jensen January 22, 2010

Very nice Dale! Definitely worth the re-shoot. The colors, comp, and DOF are all really nice. #8321777

Dale Hardin January 22, 2010

Thanks Jeff. Can't wait 'till next Thursday and Friday. Will be good to see you again. #8321782

Teresa H. Hunt January 22, 2010

Nice job Dale! Your re-shoot is much better. :) #8321847

Joan E. Hoffman January 22, 2010

Me too Dale! Glad you took the time to retake the shot. It was well worth the time. Really love this great salmony pink colour...!! #8321892

Debbie E. Payne January 22, 2010

I like this one,Dale but still my eye goes to the blurred ones in the background. Outside of using your tripod and focusing on the front flower for one image and the others for a second image and blending them together somehow, I don't see how a sharp image from front to back considering the size of this little guy can be accomplished. What is the name of this cactus, Dale? #8322113

Dale Hardin January 22, 2010

thanks for getting me to redo this guys.

Debbie, I have no idea what kind of cactus this is. We picked it up at Morro Bay about 10 years ago and it has grown to be about six inches across for the entire plant.

By the way, the macro lens I used on this shot only has a depth of 3/8 inch at f16 and I took this at f4.8. Not a lot of room for error. #8322613

Anthony L. Mancuso January 22, 2010

I'm not crazy about this one Dale, I think the blurred area dominates the in focus flower...I think it would've worked better if the focused area was on the top.. #8322980

Dale Hardin January 23, 2010

Actually Tony, the problem with this shot is the POV. I was not able to get my tripod low enough to get a straight on shot of the bud so ended up with too much dominance of the top of the sprig.

I might just try again and move the darned thing. :o) #8323857

Michael Kelly January 23, 2010

I think you are on the right track here Dale as the focus area is much crisper than the original. I agree with your assessment of the POV. While this POV would work OK in a lot of shots the very small DOF lets the blurred area dominate the shot. A move and shooting at a flatter angle should fix up that situation. #8323931

Dale Hardin January 23, 2010

Thanks Mike. I did go out this morning and try again. I still have trouble telling when the lens is in focus especially in bright light.

This is my last attempt. Will try something else later. Thanks to everyone for the input on this. #8324050

Anthony L. Mancuso January 23, 2010

Much better Dale! like the comp here and the DOF is vastly improved, I just think the hightlights need to be toned down a bit...

Way to stick with this shot, I love macro but I think it is arguably the most technically difficult category to do well because there are so many factors to deal with...I think you did a great job sticking with it and overcoming those factors here.. #8324127

Teresa H. Hunt January 23, 2010

Dale, this shot is so much better. Good job sticking with it!! #8324130

Peter W. Marks January 23, 2010

Hi Dale. Everyone is talking about the 'reshoot' so why am I not finding the original to compare this to?
I am afraid old friend that I am agreeing with Debbie, Tony and Mike -the blurred part overwhelms the flower and I am puzzled as to why Jeff says the depth of field 'is really nice' as for me this is where the image fails. Looking over the plant I am puzzled as to why the main subject, flower,is sharp (was this selected and PS sharpened?), also the back part of the shelf like thing sticking out on the right side of the stalk is fairly sharp on the tip but blurry infront. Similarly just above the left side white flower, the spotted part at the back is sharper than the large spotted thing below the flower which is infront, not behind the part I refer to. Can you follow what I am trying to say here? My thinking is that it is possible with the focus setting on the camera, depending on what depth of field is available with the partcular lens and focus, to have the immediate forground out of focus; the center sharply in focus; and the background out of focus; but I cannot see how it is possible to have the reverse, ie in-focus then out-of-focus, then in-focus again. But I am always ready to learn.
Just as an aside, and I believe I did state this on some earlier image somewhere, DOF does not mean "blurry". Quite the reverse in fact as it refers to the band of acceptable "sharpness". so, for instance in a landscape shot with the lens set at say f22 the image will be sharp from the foreground, all the way to the distant background and this can be referred to as a large or good DOF. The opposite, would be to set the focal length at say f1.8 and then as an example, if you focussed on the fence post or whatever immediately in the foreground, then everything beyond that will be out of focus and this could be called a narrow DOF.
Is any one with me? #8324229

Anthony L. Mancuso January 23, 2010

I follow you Pete but here is a question aobut DOF related to f-stop: how does one tell when the entire field of view will be in focus for a particular f-stop? For example, if you are set at f1.8 and focus on a near object the bg will be blurry for sure, but how far away will the focus point have to be before nothing in the image is blurry? #8324275

Jeanine M. Bailey January 23, 2010

Dale I like your last try the best!! #8324423

Jodi M. Walsh January 23, 2010

way to keep at it Dale. the last one is really nice. gorgeous lighting and while I think your first post is also nice, that blur is a bit of a distraction. #8324466

Michael Kelly January 23, 2010

I agree Dale this is by far the best and an excellent shot of this tiny flower. Good job staying with it and getting that perfect shot.

Peter you are correct in that DOF refers to the area that is in sharp focus. The field of focus of a certain f stop and distance from the camera. Typically it extends further back from the prim focus than forward so prime focus is rarely in the center of the DOF. One of the things we commonly talk about though is how you use DOF to our advantage by allowing the BG or FG to be out of focus due to DOF in order to isolate the subject and give a closer approximation of how we really see things. Our eyes have a DOF too.

Tony, good question and one that can not be answered easily. One of the things that newer cameras and lenses have done worse than in older models is they drop a lot of that information. My older film equipment lenses used to come with extensive DOF tables and even had indicators on some of the lenses showing DOF. Not so with digital. However, the DOF preview button was retained at least on my Cannon cameras so you can visually check DOF using this tool. The distance away before nothing is blurry depends on a number of factors. The focal length of the lens, the f stop and the distance to the subject. I don't have a link but if you look up hyperfocal charts I am sure you will be able to find a table that will approximate the answer to your question. One example: at f22 a 50mm lens manually focused at 8 feet will have everything in focus from 4 feet to infinity while an 18mm lens focused at 2 feet will have everything in focus from 1 foot to infinity. #8324547

Dale Hardin January 23, 2010

Thanks Tony and Teresa.

Peter, I understand what you are talking about. What you are seeing is and optical illusion caused by the angle the shot was taken and the POV. It makes it appear as if the white flower is in front and it's not. As I mentioned I have a lot of difficulty seeing where the focus is and on this shot the narrow DOF was on the stem behind the white flower.

Jeanine and Jodi, thanks a bunch. There was a vast difference in lighting between the first postings and this last shot. We have been having torrential rains and today we had sun, so the last shot was better lit.

Mike, thanks for the input and info on hyperfocus. I had a chart for my camera but of course could not remember the distances and never had time to refer to it when shooting. I guess the only solution is to practice and know your camera and lens to get the best results. #8324816

Rita K. Connell January 23, 2010

great discussion you never can know to much about hyperfocal. I agree Dale the last one is much better the first one out focus was to much of a distraaction #8324897

Peter W. Marks January 23, 2010

I think the short answer Tony is that
at an aperture of f1.8 on for instance a 50mm lens it depends! It will very much depend on the distance of where you set the focus. Let me give you a for example and pour yourself a drink, it gets complicated

So 50mm lens and opened to f1.8
Focus on object 20ft distance and the only part in sharp focus will be from 19ft 7 ins out to 20ft 6ins (ie just 11 ins DOF!)

Same 50mm lens at f1.8
Focus on object 100ft away and the parts in focus will be from 90ft out to 113ft (ie 23ft DOF)

However if we stop down the same 50mm lens to f22 we get the following.
Focussed on object 20ft away the parts in focus will be from 15ft 11ins to 26ft
(ie 10ft 1in DOF)

However on that same 50mm lens still stopped down to f22 we get-
Focus on object 100ft away and we get everything in focus from 43ft all the way out to infinity. (ie infinite DOF from 100ft to way over the horizon!!)

Are you still with me Tony?

Go to this website
http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html
and there is a calculator for all cameras and lens aperatures. So enter your camera model, insert the lens focal length press 'calculate'button and a spread sheet will give you the closest and furthest distance of acceptable sharpness for every thing from a f1.2 lens setting to f32

Hope this helps. Let me know if I have heaped confusion upon confusion! #8324902

Jeff E Jensen January 23, 2010

Thanks Peter. This is really interesting. #8324919

Anthony L. Mancuso January 23, 2010

Thanks Mike and Peter for those in depth DOF explanations. I wasn't able to pour myself a drink because I am at work Peter, and I don't think it would be kosher for a nurse to be smelling of booze as he tended to his patients. I was able to follow that explanation nonentheless. I am fortunate to be able to join the group from time to time during these discussion while I am at work, because our internet had been taken away, but has since been restored. (thank god) #8324968

Teresa H. Hunt February 19, 2010

Finalist! Yeah! Congratulations! #8394364

Jeff E Jensen February 19, 2010

Congratulations on your finalist! Way to go my friend! #8394545

Anthony L. Mancuso February 19, 2010

Congrats on the finalist Dale! #8394547

Dale Hardin February 19, 2010

Finalist? Wow, where did that come from? Thanks Teresa, Jeff and Tony. Wasn't expecting anything else on this image. What a welcome surprise. #8394844

Peter W. Marks February 19, 2010

Congratulations Dale! Well done old friend. Now perhaps I will take more notice of your suggestions :) #8394870

Debbie E. Payne February 19, 2010

dale = I ditto that. I am still having to be a woman of few words,typing takes its toll... #8394946

Sherry McClead February 19, 2010

Congratulations on your beautiful finalist Dale!! #8395042

Dale Hardin February 19, 2010

Peter, thank you but don't forget that grain of salt. :o)

Thanks Debbie. I know what it took to make the comment and I appreciate it so much. Hope the healing is going well. We miss you.

Thank you Sherry. #8395207

Laura L. Gonzales February 19, 2010

Congratulations Dale on this beautiful Finalist! Laura #8399224

Dale Hardin February 19, 2010

Thank you Laura. #8399532

Mary K. Robison February 20, 2010

Lovely colors and superb details in this well deserved finalist, Dale! Congratulations! #8402539

Dale Hardin February 20, 2010

Thank you Mary. Coming from someone with such credentials as your gallery reveals, it is a much appreciated comment. #8402903

To discuss, first log in or sign up (buttons are at top center of page).

Get Constructive Critiques

Did You Know?

Discussions by Category: You can view photo discussions on various themes in the Community > Photo Discussions section of the site.

BetterPhoto Websites: If you see an orange website link directly under the photographer's name, it's totally okay. It's not spam. The reason: BetterPhoto is the one that offers these personal photography websites. We are supporting our clients with those links.

Unavailable EXIF: If there is no other information but 'Unavailable' in the EXIF (meaning no EXIF data exists with the photo), the 'Unavailable' blurb is not displayed. If there is any info, it shows. Many photos have the EXIF stripped out when people modify the image and resave it, before uploading.

The following truth is one of the core philosophies of BetterPhoto:

I hear, I forget.
I see, I remember.
I do, I understand.

You learn by doing. Take your next online photography class.

You &

Love It!

Copyright for this photo belongs solely to Dale Hardin.
Images may not be copied, downloaded, or used in any way without the expressed, written permission of the photographer.
Log in to follow or message this photographer or report this photo.

My Profile

My Photo Shows

My Photos

My BetterPholio

My Messages

My Courses

Description

Comments

Get Constructive Critiques

Did You Know?