| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
krisk
Settling in
Joined: 29 Jan 2010
Posts: 55
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:36 pm Post subject: South Australia |
 |
|
Not to be out done by the Western Australians...
Eriochilus cucullatus in the Adelaide Hills. This is one of our first orchids to flower for the year. They flower first, then the single leaf develops. They are a common, though fungus dependent orchid. Not usually seen in great numbers, but can be locally common. Fairly easy to cultivate as long as you resist the urge to overwater, which causes the tubers to rot.
|
| Eriochilus cucullatus |
|
| Eriochilus cucullatus |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
krisk
Settling in
Joined: 29 Jan 2010
Posts: 55
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One more, this one is from Scott Creek, also in the Adelaide Hills
|
| Eriochilus cucullatus |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fred
Site Admin
Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 1060
Location: Ghent, Belgium
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Must be quite a display when grown in a community pot. What's the size of one flower?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krisk
Settling in
Joined: 29 Jan 2010
Posts: 55
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
There was a pot full at our last NOSSA meeting. They are quite an intriguing species, and apparently easy to flask. The flowers are normally about 10-12mm in height, though some of the larger ones can be up to 15mm. I've not seen them any bigger than that.
Cheers,
Kris
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terra_Australis
Settling in
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 187
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| We came across a few on a recent outing over this way. Very easy to miss given their aparrently solitary nature and having such a tiny little white/pink blossom on a great long stem.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krisk
Settling in
Joined: 29 Jan 2010
Posts: 55
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I believe they are looking to split up our Adelaide Hills forms into a number of species. Certainly at the 3 sites I normally visit, they are far from solitary. The largest site down near Cape Jervis has hundreds, possibly thousands of plants. You'll find that not all of them flower, at the Scott Creek site I found many that were only leaves. I really like the pink form that you get over there. We don't see those here.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terra_Australis
Settling in
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 187
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marty
Settling in
Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 90
Location: Albany Western AUSTRALIA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Great photo's , I allways find these hard to get a decent pic of for some reason. I hear we have them out here also at the moment but havnt managed to go for a look yet  .
Marty
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terra_Australis
Settling in
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 187
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, they do tend to be a little tricky to photograph. With their sepals projecting forward I find they usually fall out of the field of focus. The above one I took at more of a top-down angle so as to get as much in focus as possible. The other problem is with a flash the sepals also tend to overexpose and the rest gets underexposed.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marty
Settling in
Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 90
Location: Albany Western AUSTRALIA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hopefully I will find a few this weekend and get a decent shot or 2 .
Are there many species in the Eastern states ?? There are quite a few here and I sometimes find them difficult to identify confidently .I am thinking I should look more closely at the leaves of the earlier flowering species.
Marty
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krisk
Settling in
Joined: 29 Jan 2010
Posts: 55
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This is a species that you really need a camera with good manual controls for. An SLR and good macro lens is the best, but consumer camera can give ok results. I almost always use a flash in combination with a diffuser (http://www.lumiquest.com/products/softbox.htm). This eliminates harsh shadows you get in bright light, and gives a good even lighting to flowers. Your camera is likely overexposing because it is metering on the wrong areas. I tend to use spot metering the most, which allows you to pick which area of the photo you want correctly exposed. You can also use exposure bracketing or play with exposure compensation to get a result you are happy. The histogram on your camera will help identify overexposure. For good depth of field, you want to be using Aperture Priority mode. What setting you use will depend somewhat on the focal length of the lens, and how close the background is to the subject. A good tripod is definitely a must when working with any sort of macro. Finally, try to pick flowers that have more of a flat profile. That way more of the flower will remain in focus.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fred
Site Admin
Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 1060
Location: Ghent, Belgium
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Digital SLR has another advantage over consumer cameras: they get the purples right.
When you're shopping for a consumer camera to photograph plants always try it out on some blue & purple flowers when you get home. In consumer cameras there's a coating on the sensor to make it insensitive for UV and IR. The coating often blocks colors that shouldn't be blocked (deep red and high blue). In DSLR the coating is in the lens.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terra_Australis
Settling in
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 187
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good point on the spot filtering. Never had much luck with it on my 30D so I admit I tend to neglect it on my new bodies. Diffusers are a must. Actually, I don't think I ever use a flash without a diffuser for any photography. As for tripod use, the use of a flash tends to negate the need as far as preventing shake and I guess I've just had enough practice to get focus working handheld. There's a technique to time the exposure to your breathing kind of like a marksman firing a rifle. I just find it a lot more convenient than hauling a tripod around with me. Also, I shoot as RAW which is a great help if you need to adjust the exposure. Perhaps it has made me a little lazy though 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terra_Australis
Settling in
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 187
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fred wrote: | Digital SLR has another advantage over consumer cameras: they get the purples right.
When you're shopping for a consumer camera to photograph plants always try it out on some blue & purple flowers when you get home. In consumer cameras there's a coating on the sensor to make it insensitive for UV and IR. The coating often blocks colors that shouldn't be blocked (deep red and high blue). In DSLR the coating is in the lens. |
Actually that isn't necessarily true. I know for a fact that Canon DSLRs have an IR block filter on the sensor. Whether they are optimised to allow all visible red I can't say for sure. Most lenses have anti-UV coating within them also. As far as I'm aware both of these filters only block red and blue outside the visible spectrum so there should be little effect on the colour output from that point of view. If colours come out incorrectly I would say it is more to do with how the camera sensor interprets visual information.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krisk
Settling in
Joined: 29 Jan 2010
Posts: 55
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Terra_Australis wrote: | | As for tripod use, the use of a flash tends to negate the need as far as preventing shake and I guess I've just had enough practice to get focus working handheld. There's a technique to time the exposure to your breathing kind of like a marksman firing a rifle. |
If depth of field is your goal, then hand-held will not suffice. It will also depend on the focal length of the lens you use. I use a Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro. With such a long focal length (or even at 100mm) you cannot practically use it without a tripod. There is a bit of rule in photography when shooting hand-held, your shutter speed should be no less than the reciprocal of the focal length. So for example if you are using a 100mm macro, then you should have a shutter speed of 1/100 or faster. If you have a 50mm lens, then obviously you can get away with a much slower speed. The maximum aperture of your lens will also play a role here too, though not so much at f11 or higher, which is generally what I use, depending on the effect I want.
| Terra_Australis wrote: | | I just find it a lot more convenient than hauling a tripod around with me. |
I bought myself a carbon fiber/magnesium alloy Manfrotto tripod. Which is cost a small fortune, its over 1kg lighter than cheaper models. Mini tripods are also an option, and quite small and light for packing into bags. Quick release tripod shoes make using a tripod a breeze. One of those things where you get what you pay for.
| Terra_Australis wrote: | | Also, I shoot as RAW which is a great help if you need to adjust the exposure. Perhaps it has made me a little lazy though |
Software adjustments should be used sparingly, as they can actually degrade an image. There is only so much fixing you can do in software. It's much better to take a better picture with the camera. RAW is good though. Anyone serious about photography should ignore that JPEG rubbish 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terra_Australis
Settling in
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 187
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll agree to disagree with you on the first point 
I use a 100/2.8 and generally keep my aperture around f/8 - f/10 at close distances or down to f/4 (to separate from the background) occasionally if I'm wanting to capture full plants or growing situations. Either that or I use a wider lens on the other camera. Shutter speeds stay around 1/80 - 1/160 and I will bump up the ISO if needed. ISO performance on both the 40D and 1D3 is fairly good so I don't have too much of an issue on that front.
Anyways... we're probably boring everyone with this technical photography banter. Any more pics? 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SzPeter_hu
Seed Bank Manager
Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 188
Location: Hungary
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Terra_Australis wrote: |
There's a technique to time the exposure to your breathing.
|
And there is also a technique to time your breathing to the exposure. I usually blow out all air, wait a few sec, and then I take the picture. My experience shows that my hands shake less when my lungs are empty.
| krisk wrote: |
If depth of field is your goal, then hand-held will not suffice.
There is a bit of rule in photography when shooting hand-held, your shutter speed should be no less than the reciprocal of the focal length.
|
That's probably the rule when you are standing in an open field, but if you are lying on the ground or leaning to the side of a tree much slower speeds are sufficient. I use 50-70mm lens, sometimes with extension rings and I can go down to 1/30 sec. I also used 1/25 sec and got acceptable image clarity.
I like extension rings very much. Do macro lens have any advantages over these?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terra_Australis
Settling in
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 187
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SzPeter_hu wrote: |
And there is also a technique to time your breathing to the exposure. I usually blow out all air, wait a few sec, and then I take the picture. My experience shows that my hands shake less when my lungs are empty.
|
| SzPeter_hu wrote: |
That's probably the rule when you are standing in an open field, but if you are lying on the ground or leaning to the side of a tree much slower speeds are sufficient. I use 50-70mm lens, sometimes with extension rings and I can go down to 1/30 sec. I also used 1/25 sec and got acceptable image clarity.
I like extension rings very much. Do macro lens have any advantages over these? |
It is more of a guide than a rule. The affects of camera movement are far more noticeable at longer focal lengths (300mm onward) but that said I have taken very crisp pictures of planes at airshows at 1/125 using a 400mm lens. In my opinion, just stick with what works
There main advantage of a true macro lens is simply versatility. You can take pictures of a flower at 1:1 magnification and then take a picture of a bird in a tree several metres away. With extension tubes you would be constantly detaching and re-attaching them. Extensions will limit your maximum focus distance.
I previously used a cheap 35-70mm zoom with extension tubes as part of a variable magnification macro setup. I got some of my best pictures from that combination. I'm actually considering going back to that it was so successful. Much lighter too.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fred
Site Admin
Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 1060
Location: Ghent, Belgium
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Terra_Australis wrote: | | Anyways... we're probably boring everyone with this technical photography banter. |
I think most of us here enjoy either looking at or taking macro shots, so let's add some more banter.
I bought a mini 10 Euro tripod some time ago, I use it for taking photographs in low light settings (shaded greenhouses and forests). But for field trips I use a trick - I don't always bother to carry the tripod with me. Take a screw that fits the body's tripod hole, screw it in with the end of a 2 m piece of string around it. The other end goes around your foot in a loop. If you pull it while standing up you have the same stability as a unipod.
But like in Peter's experience I'm mostly flat on the soil.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terra_Australis
Settling in
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 187
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Neat trick Fred. A friend of mine does a similar thing using his camera's shoulder strap around the back of his arm... not for macro stuff though.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krisk
Settling in
Joined: 29 Jan 2010
Posts: 55
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Terra_Australis wrote: | | I will bump up the ISO if needed. ISO performance on both the 40D and 1D3 is fairly good so I don't have too much of an issue on that front |
And I guess thats my point, by shooting hand-held, you make trade-offs in other areas. So you are having to up the ISO to deal with the slower shutter speed. This reduces your picture quality. Like I said, it depends on what you consider acceptable. For me, I always use the lowest possible ISO, and will only increase it as a last resort, say if I'm in a remote location with windy and dark conditions that I can't easily get back to.
| SzPeter_hu wrote: | | That's probably the rule when you are standing in an open field, but if you are lying on the ground or leaning to the side of a tree much slower speeds are sufficient. I use 50-70mm lens, sometimes with extension rings and I can go down to 1/30 sec. I also used 1/25 sec and got acceptable image clarity. |
Yes you can get good results. But you are leaving more to chance. Taking any risk of shake from the camera increases your odds of a good photo. Ok, so you can take hundreds of pictures until you get one good one. Personally I'd rather not have to sort through them all in the first place. It's a brute force method to photography. Surely its much easier to just use a tripod and take the luck out of a good photo. I also use mirror lockup to reduce shutter vibration. Yes it quite definitely does depend on what you find acceptable. I have very high standards in most things I do.
| SzPeter_hu wrote: | | I like extension rings very much. Do macro lens have any advantages over these? |
It really depends on the lens you are using with the extension rings. If it's a very good, fast lens, then no, there is not really much difference. The main thing to realise is that the extension ring will reduce the range of apertures you can use. Usually a feature of a good macro is a low aperture, such as f32, whereas a standard zoom might only go down to f22. It's also important to note that most macro lenses are prime lenses (fixed focal length). Prime lenses have less elements and so are not only cheaper to manufacture, but offer a superior image to all but the most expensive zoom lenses.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fred
Site Admin
Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 1060
Location: Ghent, Belgium
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another trick to compensate for low-light conditions is photo-stacking. There are a few free tools out there for that.
It basically works like this. You take 3 photographs in rapid succession (with tripod) under "acceptable" settings, i.e. a series of pics that looks just a tad too dark. They're then fed to the stacking software, it reduces the noise and you can bump the light. Stacking is normally used to increase detail or reduce noise, but the theory behind it can be translated to improve the amount of light.
Here's a set of photos I shot in a glasshouse. The second photo (Coelogyne pandurata) shows what you get with 1/200 sec, f/8, ISO 400. If my memory serves me well I think the third pandurata shot (lip slightly sideways) was done with 3x stacking on images with 1/160 sec, f/5, ISO 400.
BTW, here's an online EXIF viewer I used to recall the settings.
I also used it for the Mosquito Mayhem shots some time ago.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krisk
Settling in
Joined: 29 Jan 2010
Posts: 55
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
|
| Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Leporella fimbriata near Mount Compass, South Australia of course. A fascinating little orchid that I've not seen in cultivation, despite its quite wide distribution. It's locally common in sandy habits, usually out in the open. They seem to like a lot of sun and little to no leaf mulch.
|
| Leporella fimriata |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terra_Australis
Settling in
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 187
|
| Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nice. Haven't seen many pictures of these myself even.
Jones suggests cultivation is impossible although no reason is given.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krisk
Settling in
Joined: 29 Jan 2010
Posts: 55
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
A couple photos from the last few weeks...
|
| Pterostylis dolichochila at Monarto, just east of the Adelaide Hills. This is a dry country species, known locally as Mallee. |
|
| Corybas diemenicus, growing in heavy leaf litter under the shelver of small prickly shrubs. The conditions are quite damp, shady and protected. |
|
| Corybas diemenicus close up |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Report a bug
Album
Search
Memberlist
Calendar
TV
Register
