You've got me at it now Hama

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Would an A5 print be of such clarity i wonder? for publishing purposes of course?

 

that shots a beauty, defo Flamulina velutipes, darn im good!

[sean]

got to admit it takes some fine photo's:thumbup: nothing to do with you obviously mate:001_smile:

 

I will vouch for the ease with which the g10 lens gets scratched....from personal experience:sad:

[Albedo]

Would an A5 print be of such clarity i wonder? for publishing purposes of course?

 

that shots a beauty, defo Flamulina velutipes, darn im good!

 

I think it keeps the quality up to larger sizes as I think thats why they limit the scope of its output (zoomwise etc). They have to please their target market I remember from reading reviews etc.

 

By the way, you can attach a viewfinder or flash to the hotshoe. Its the same viewfinder as for the GF1 and is pricey. About 180 quid I vaguely remember. But as a future add on for you it would get you down and dirty with the shrooms as it does swivel thru 90 degrees or so.

 

It also has a lense cap which is a bit retro, but if you attach it with the chord that comes with it you can tuck it in the palm as you shoot. I've got used to it already and don't find it a hassle.

 

It is a good toy aye Sean, and I just frame them, the camera does the impressive bit and Hama ID's them.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Albedo
Typos

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Not to be a smarty pants, but in the interests of giving you a tip, whilst adding in a little mickey taking! so dont be sensitive!

 

Whilst the above photo is of superb quality if i was voting on it in the WWildlife photography competition (i intend to force them to add a "fifth kingdom" section) I would mark you down for not having done anything with the distracting grass blades within the focal plane and for not moving right a little and getting a little seperation between the caps. otherwise, its a corker, and no I dont know what they are, told you i was a fake!

[Albedo]

No worries H, thanks for the advice thats what I want in this thread, it would be worse to say something is great when it isn't, thats no use to anybody.

 

If they are still there tommorrow and if it isn't persisting down I'll have another go and post the result, might take a pair of scissors for offending blades of grass. They are tiny weeny shrooms these.

 

 

Its a bit soft in focus too isn't it

[Albedo]

Well H.

 

I found the same two shrooms in the same condition as yesterday this morning, and then started work on the roof that I’m working on. Waiting for the light to improve. The sun came out so I rushed over, and did it all in a bit of a rush, I knocked over shroom 2 and damaged shroom one yanking out bits of grass.

 

I guess I’ve learned to take time to do this properly from this little catastroff.

 

I was reluctant to tamper with natures bounty but could see the sense in giving it a go.

 

Had a go later on and developed a technique of using the front leg of the mini tripod to shove things out the way, this seems to work a treat.

 

So your advice has been taken on board and the verdict is ... found to be useful and to be borne in mind all the time:thumbup1:

 

Heres some from today anyway.

 

The bug has been cropped and the others not messed with.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I wouldnt cut the blades out, youl be suprised how one little snip or "fakery" can show within an image even if out of the focal plane.

 

just brush em aside, carefully, try to avoid stuff that is too close to your subject(macro shots) being in the same focal plane as it is distracting and you want the eye to be led only to that which you wish to portray (your main subject)

 

Most people asume that depth of field is the holy grail, but there is much trickery to be utilised with the brains capacity to make up the rest of the image in peripheral view type situations. True depth of field, and percieved depth of field are too distinct and very different points.

 

Shallow depth of field can enhance an image greatly, and the longer focal length the easier it is to create the effect, also getting your backgrounds way back helps this greatly.

 

Its all about what you want the viewer to see, and in this little image it is ALL about the fungi, and the out of focus greenery is its backdrop. Whereas if you wanted the viewer to get an understanding of the "natural nieghbourhood" depth of field would be of vital importance.

 

An example of this would be to take a shot of a small alpine plant in extreme close up, but having its mountain peak out of focus in the top right or left corners, this would allow the viewers mind to picture the plants habitat and greatly increases the "story telling" aspect of the image.

[Albedo]

posted at same time h.

 

your post should come before the one I just did, will read it now

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

The feather I would have place so its straight middle rib went from one corner of the image to the other, a "lead in line"

 

The bug, well thats a toughey, you need a big aperture to capture the moment, but this shallows the field, and it shows, the way round this is to shoot it head on at 45 degrees and ensure the eyes and antenea are in sharp focus, the mind makes up the rest. same with portraits of people and animals, always focus on the eyes, the mind fills in the blanks.

 

the last photo of the buttercup, well i would have gone flat on to the flower to increas depth of field as much as poss and focussed on the stamens closesest to view.

[Albedo]

Hows this mate:001_smile:

 

The feather - I just did a crop as per your instruction.

The bug is one I did earlier

The buttercup, I just quickly found another one as my laptop can't keep up

 

Will digest the DOF info over a bit more time:thumbup1: