Using a Telephoto lens to Photograph Flowers
 

This is an example of what can be done with a telephoto lens in photographing flowers, including orchids. One has to shoot from further away (with this lens a distance of six feet, but shots of this type produce beautifully blurred backgrounds. This was shot with a Canon 70-300mm lens set at140mm at ISO400, 1/400, f7.1. This works particularly well in greenhouses and at flower shows where one has little or no control of the background. It does not work well, however, with small flowers unless one has a very powerful telephoto.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5134/...37611fe4_t.jpg

Thanks for the suggestion, Ron. A good one for me to try!

:)

You are welcome, Shirley - would like to see the results.

Thanks, Tindo. Hope to see the results.

I imagine with small enough flowers at such an event, one could unobtrusively hold (or get your friend to hold!) a small neutral coloured card some distance behind the subject - in macro range, things get pretty blurry pretty quickly (although I generally shoot macro with a 100 or a 105mm lens anyway). And of course, if you have the time, there's always photoshop "touchups"... :)

Thanks for the tip :)

Yes, that can be done, but the using a telephoto helps a great deal when the background can't be controlled, as at a show or in a greenhouse.

Your pictures look great! How is the depth of focus? I have problems with that on my macro, but I can get very close (I can touch the flower to the lense!)

This technique helps, since a macro lens does reduce the depth of field especially when you get very close. One solution is a tripod with your macro - then you can shoot on aperture priority and use the smallest possible aperture to increase the dof (I generally shoot at f32 when shooting very close, but you are taking long exposures then (up to 30 seconds) and need a tripod. This doesn't work, of course, on a windy day.

Should have added that the closer you get to something the les dof you get. You can also use a focus stacking program to manipulate the picture after you take it.

Another option to use when working with small apertures is one or more flashes - I've used that a lot lately and it works quite well. Helps if you can use off-camera flash of course to adjust the lighting somewhat. If you're sneaky, you can light your subject and leave the background relatively so dark that it disappears.

Of course, people will look at you funny if you cart that much photo gear around in public, and spend that much time fussing over flower photos. Of course, if you use something like a butterfly bracket or macro/ring flash, there's a lot less faffing around. :)

You are correct that a flash is another option - I use a ring flash also in such situations. One does get a lot of odd looks and questions about whether one is a professional and so on.

That's a beautiful photograph. Thanks for the good information.

Thanks for looking and commenting, tucker.

Nice shot, Tindo. The blurred screen makes a nice background.

Interesting idea. I'm only just investigating SLR's and lenses (don't own one yet just thinking about the posibility) so it's really interesting to see what people are doing.

Here's an example of an Epipactis gigantea shot in Joshua Tree National Monument at the 49 Palms Oasis. It was done with a 300 mm f/4 OM Zuiko lens on an OM4, back in 2002. The background is the skirt of a palm (Washingtonia filifera) that is just a couple of feet behind, but completely out of focus.

Attachment 54389

Second example is a Chaenactis artemisiifolia shot in Rocky Peak State Park (Los Angeles area). this time with a Canon 300 mm f/2.8 IS at f6.3 on a full frame dSLR (5dmkII). Couldn't get closer to the plant, so used the long tube.

Attachment 54390

I also use the 300 lens for reptiles, then often with extension rings to get a little closer. Image quality suffers a bit, as the lens errors get magnified with the image, but sure beats getting bitten by a rattle snake.

With those long beasts, it is important to use a very sturdy tripod, mirror lock-up/self-timer/live view, cable release, the works. The 300 seems to be the best compromise between still covering decent distance, but also being able to do close-ups. Notice, that longer lenses get worse and worse closest focus capabilities. Once in a while, I slap a 1.4 converter on there to get 420 mm.

In LF, I have a 720 mm (in the Tele Nikkor tripple convertible 360/500/720 combo), but mostly use the 360 and the 500. The 720 on 4x5" corresponds approximately to a 240 mm on full frame SLR. It's a real pain to use, particularly with movements because of the tele design.

Great examples folks!

Here's a few of my attempts using a 70-200 f4L, 1/200 @ f5 ISO 100
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3466/...003ccc44_b.jpg

1/1000 @ f5 ISO 200
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/...bf25cb96_b.jpg

1/250 @ f7.1 ISO 200 off camera flash fired at 1/16th power 52mm of extension tubes was also used for this one.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4102/...f3e41248_b.jpg

One has to be very careful with tele flash. In theory, exposure with flash is very short (on the order of 1/1'000-10'000s), so is used to get around a tripod and still have sharp images. The issue with tele flash is that a fairly high flash-power is required. For one, the object is usually further away, second, lenses are not as strong light gatherers. It means, that often the flash is pretty much fully discharged. At full discharge, flash duration is more on the order of 1/200 s. This is also the faster of the flash synchronization times (on older/cheaper cameras it is 1/60s).

What's that all about? The issue is that the longest exposure time one can hand-hold without getting motion blur is 1/focal length in mm (for full frame SLR: for APS the equivalents are actually about 1/3 shorter!). So at 200 mm focal length (on full frame SLR), one is just about at the edge for hand-holding full discharge flash exposures, with longer focal lengths, one still needs a good tripod. That also applies with mixed light situations.

Why is the 1/focal length rule only applicable to full frame SLR? It has to do with the angular deviation that are not going outside the circle of confusion on the sensor. As the total angle of the image is narrower due the smaller sensors on APS-C (and half-frame) cameras, the angular deviations are more pronounced at the same focal length in mm compared to full-frame SLR.

The only options would be the few linear flashes. I once had the OM 280, but the issue is that with shorter shutter speeds, the flash power also declines, something that is not often mentioned in the literature.

Hmmmmmm... OK, I'm not argueing with you, mostly because I'm still not entirely sure what you just said. I get a lot of what you said above, but it seems to me that if you spend your time with calculations and theories like that you'll never take any images. Sometimes it just works. Yes knowing what you are doing is great, but trying something new and pushing the limits has it's merits too.

Chas and Ron, you both take great photos and are an inspiration.

Chas, my point is quite simple. Flash in often (not always) used as an action stopper and to produce tack-sharp images. With teles-flash, it is not always the case unless it is properly done.

I do subscribe to the idea, that one should thoroughly understand what one is doing, and thereby increases the probability of good images. Additionally, by understanding the principles, one can deliberately deviate from the rules with some idea on what the consequences are. Or one can apply the principles across various imaging systems. I run the gamut from scanning electron microscope to regular light microscopes, SLR, to 4x5" large format. Understanding optical principles helps me to get the most out of each system.

I learned photography in the department of physical chemistry at university, not the art department, so that has certainly colored my perspective. Writing it all out takes time, but I've got that and a bit more internalized, so it's just second nature. Initially, it takes time to understand it, but it reaps benefits down the road. So a very worth-while investment.

I do understand that visually pleasing (art is in the eye of the beholder) images can be made even violating "good" photographic practices. As I bill myself as a scientific photographer, one of the key aspects is tack sharp images. Hand-held tele-flash can lead to images with motion blurr with full-power flash, or ghosting with fill-flash. Yes, I've done both. And both result in instant rejects for the vast majority of publication outlets, therefore, no need to keep those, just toss/delete them.

Stunning as always Ron! Thanks for the tip. I need to buy some better lenses for my camera. I have the means to do some extra spending now. I may start the lens collection!

Good luck, Amanda. Thanks for the note.

It's not actually mine, Paul, but was photographed at Manito City Park in Spokane. It is lovely, though, and I wouldn't mind having it myself.