Fernando Gonzalez Gentile wrote:
> LOL, Moose. Now I will tell the truth. Some years ago, shortly after I had
> joined this list, you posted a small sequence of white tulips where a couple
> of ants seemed to be enjoying themselves. Those were done with
> the 135/4.5, I'm pretty sure.
Good memory - to a point. I've never had white tulips, preferring
gaudier ones The only white flower sequence I recall is gladiolas. We
planted some lovely yellow glads a few years ago, most with a red throat
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Glads/pages/14-1075_.htm>.
Maybe the second year, a white one or two appeared, then more in later
years. I have no idea how they got there, or whether some yellow ones
'evolved'.
I suspect this is the shot to which you refer
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Glads/pages/10-1053.htm>. I was
wandering around the garden, looking for shots, when I saw a ladybird
beetle on a white gladiola and quickly took the shot. I immediately
realized that I had not reset the EV comp. from the last use, and the
shot was underexposed. I corrected the EV and went to reshoot. Lo and
behold, not only was the first 'bug' there, but another one had landed.
I ordered the images in the gallery differently than the order in which
they were taken. I wanted to lead up to the best shots.
I assure you there was no posing, arranging, etc. done by me, only by
Nature. I freely admit to PS manipulation of LCE, curves, etc. It was an
overcast day with very flat light, which is not what I made it seem at
all. But no image elements were moved around or added.
As to camera, well I did indeed post some 135/4.5 shots around that
time, both with 65-116 tube and auto bellows. However, these shots are
from the 1.9 MP Canon S110 P&S. As with the art shots I recently posted,
I was seeing what was possible with a camera of modest specs. The other
'bugs' that I captured on flora I was photographing around that time
were with the Kiron 105/2.8.
> Less than four weeks ago I went into my small backyard to take a close look
> at the hibiscus blossoming in the
> middle of the winter. Watched that lonely ant for a moment during a cold and
> cloudy early morning
Well, it was morning, cool and cloudy, but not early.
> , and recalled your tulips. Having half an hour for myself, decided to make
> my version of the memory I have of your photos. I was quite aware about the
> oof foreground, but could not place the tripod anywhere else and refused to
> manipulate the scene - cutting the leaves or anything. The 65 - 116 was fully
> extended and couldn't get closer, unless going back to fetch another tube and
> add extension ... at the expense of loosing that moment. So felt good and
> went ahead into breaking the rule of a disturbing oof foreground :)
>
As you know, I'm not much worried about rules like that. I often don't
like oof foregrounds, as a matter of personal taste, but it depends on
the shot. Here, it doesn't much matter to me. The image actually appeals
to me more for its abstract quality of shape and color, in and out of
focus than for the ant, which is, as you say, rather small.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|