NikonGear'23
Images => Nature, Flora, Fauna & Landscapes => Topic started by: Bjørn Rørslett on June 20, 2015, 14:35:15
-
Dandelions are, without any second thought, my favourite flower. They are rebels and provocative, persistent, opportunistic, pessimistic, resilient, gregarious, diversified, ubiquitous, attractive, repulsive, weeds, red-listed, ..., and so it goes ad nauseam.
These days I mainly shoot dandelions in UV as documentation of their fascinating UV signatures, but this is a pity considering all other qualities these remarkable flowers can provide. Accordingly I have collected and aim to present various dandelion photos as time allows.
Here is a sturdy and tenacious specimen captured from an inundated shore. Just to show a dandelion is true to its character and never resigns.
(https://static.foto.no/linkeddata/portfolio/images/16700_orig.jpg)
-
XTREME edit. Very inspiring. I feel a tickle in my camera hand
-
YES! (For some reason that's my immediate response.)
-
Most people viewing this picture think alike, in that it represents an extreme degree of make-over or photographic manipulation in Photoshop.
To me, that only tells me people haven't really looked into what the camera can do for them on its own. Apart from a slight cleaning up in the workflow later of the yellowish hues to avoid some muddiness, *nothing* has been done.
-
Very simplistic and bright - Inspiration is picked up...
-
In order to lift some of the enigma, might I add: *nothing* has been done in this digital capture that wasn't already feasible or conducted in the age of film.
-
What lens did you use?
-
Nikon D2X with the 200-400 mm f/4 Zoom-Nikkor ED.
Exposures around f/4 and 1/1600 sec.
-
I respect and appreciate that the camera sees different than we ... different than what we are accustomed to seeing. I applaud that you have ventured into the world of UV. The lack of manipulation stirs my imagination about what the signatures of other subjects may hold. For the record over manipulation in PhotoShop never entered my mind ... (but then I am a simpleton).
-
This is not UV, but I see your point.
-
Intriguing as always...
-
I think people learn more by engaging their mental powers instead of getting the straight answer.
If anyone should arrive at the method applied, I will confirm.
-
This is not UV, but I see your point.
Having never seen a UV image ... I mistakenly thought the image was UV ... the fact that it isn't UV, in my opinion, makes it even more remarkable. ;)
-
Yes - I know the rules :D
Do I see four fingers?
-
Still have 5 on both hands.
-
OK, so it's four fingers and a thumb ...
-
Not entirely sure in what direction you are heading Erik?
I repeat: the approach is so simple and immediately available on the camera.
I actually have provided a clue indirectly by the information posted.
-
Very nice pastels, like a water color painting where the colors have been allowed floating into each other.
A try: I suspect the image is a reflection, turned 180 °. But I am not sure if the conditions of the surface together with limited depth of field was enough blurring, or if the subject has been further softened by holding and object or film in front of the lens.
-
It looks like you held in your hand/fingers right in front of the lens, shooting through the fingers making strong front out of focus break up of the image in a similar way.
Looks like four or five strikes across the frame... Hence my guess.
But OK could be a double exposure as well :)
-
One of your suggestions would be leading to the correct conclusion, yes. Which one?
-
Well, it does not need to be a reflection. As Erik hints at, the blurring could be diffraction induced by letting light pass though smaller slots by holding an object close to the lens (like passing light between fingers as Erik suggested). This would account for variable blurring in different parts of the frame.
-
A logical and tempting explanation, but it is not correct. Although the shaping of image blurs by putting a defined object in front of the lens is old hat and still an efficient if slightly unpredictable method.
-
It's a double :)
-
Perhaps close but no cigar ...
-
A few final hints then:
Erik is on to something.
The site is on the shore of one of the largest lakes of Norway.
Due to the long fetch for the wind, waves pound the shore.
It is blowing really hard.
I am using a built-in feature of the camera.
The method is probably as old as photography itself.
-
Then its sound like moving flowers and a relative long exposure. Actually what many of the rest of us is trying to avoid ;)
-
Your assumption and one of Erik's, and the case is coming close to be solved ;D
-
I think people learn more by engaging their mental powers instead of getting the straight answer.
You are right for sure. Even if I am not up for copying your dandelions, and will never be, this thread has allready given me ideas for a lot of experimenting.
-
That's the spirit. Good on you. Do ensure to show your achievements for the benefit of the community at large.
-
If it's not shot through something or a double exposure I don't see how it could be done...
I have no idea how a reference to the god old film days has to do with what the camera otherwise can do :)
-
Independently, you and Asle have touched the approach I used.
Is a double exposure always enough?
-
d10 exposure delay mode?
-
Nope, that's not what I meant. The Sachtler tripod used here is sturdy enough :D
-
I think I got it now by how the OOF part is rendered; One shot focused on the Dandelions and one off focus or even zoomed out a bit.
Could even be you also changed the angle a bit upwards to keep the 'roots' more or less level in the image...
-
No camera or lens focal movement ....
-
Then I don't see it.
-
Oh Erik you are so close ...
Incidentally, Øivind Tøien skyped me earlier today and we discussed this very photo in depth. When I revealed the technique he was amazed at its simplicity.
-
Vaseline or spit on front element is an ancient way to do this as well.
But was not used here...
-
OK, I spill the beans and reveal it all. But promise not to laugh ...
I worked these dandelions for some hours, in UV as well as in visible light. Light was variable, occasional rain showers caused even more trouble, and wind almost reached gale force after a while, thus without the Sachtler CF ENG HD tripod the mission on that exposed shore would have to be aborted. For the capture I had my D2X added to the 200-400 mm f/4 ED Nikkor and the zoom set to around 300 mm according to my field notes. What I tried to achieve was a core of recognisable sharpness softened by wind-induced movements. To this end, the camera ran in multiple exposure mode with Auto Gain = Off and the maximum frame number provided (9 if memory serves).
This project was more difficult to achieve than I had imagined and most shots came out with too clearly defined double contours. I finally converged at a shooting protocol in which the first in the sequence was taken at the widest aperture and shortest exposure time to make a sharp core, followed by a sequence of additional exposures made as long as possible by stopping down the lens all the way.
The selected composite frame was taken when some additional light occurred to the background thereby exceeding the dynamic range of the D2X. Processing in Bibble 4 with its peculiar highlight recovery adding lots of colour casts to the recovered areas did the rest.
So, now you all know the recipe for shooting a dandelion ...
-
Well that was close.
You really thew me off by the stating the image as shot as around f/4... :)
-
EXIF is recorded only for the first frame in a multiple exposure .... I started by building from a sharp core, then blurring by the long exposures following the first one.
-
Nikon D2X with the 200-400 mm f/4 Zoom-Nikkor ED.
Exposures around f/4 and 1/1600 sec.
No, this one :)
-
Well as I said: EXIF tells me f/4 and 1/1600 sec. That is what I duly reported.
The 200-400 is of course CPU-modified.
-
Love the image, if I didn't know otherwise, I would likely mistake it for being a painting. Very interesting technique, thanks for explaining it.
-
OK. I did not follow this after my comment.
You did intentionally defocus and/or shoot in wind with a longer time plus you did overexpose to blow out the BG
-
One of the partial images were in focus, otherwise you got it right.
-
Meaning this is a double exposure. Wonderful thing.
Should use that more often!
-
Actually, *multiple* exposures. Takes some practice to learn and still behaves a little unpredictable for subjects in movement. The unpredictability means you get a lot of wasted captures and the occasional great one.
-
This is funny...I was actually playing with a very similar approach from our terrace, shooting 5 exposures of a cluster of high grass straws swaying in the wind. Never produced any image of it but will certainly try it again. Thanks for this wonderful image sharing Bjørn!
-
Ensure that at least the "most significant" of the partial images is with the aperture of the lens rather wide open. You might not want each partial image to be very sharp otherwise they might not combine in a visually pleasing manner.
As stated before, this is a technique that requires a lot of practice and of course some good luck as well. So actually not that much different from ordinary photography after all.
-
Just discovering this thread.
Beautiful image, like painting. A fair result for long and very technical shooting process.
Pastel colors and perfect compo makes it successful.
As a matter of fact, it seems that some ''enigmatic rules'' of composition/aesthetics applied here, certainly by chance, I mean naturally, without concentration, hence this pleasant compo.;)
So actually not that much different from ordinary photography after all.
Well, except the long time you spent, and probably in freezing conditions . :)
-
Nah, not freezing, just very windy in combination with spring temperature.