There's a new orchid display up at the Arboretum.  This is a good thing, not only because they are a fun and varied flower, but they also present a great opportunity to play around photographically.

One obvious thing you can try is taking portraits of the flowers.  Shoot individual buds, close-ups of parts, etc.  In the next couple of shots I wanted to try and get full branches filled with flowers and buds.  All were taken with the same lens and used a tripod.

The first considerations were framing and direction - portrait or landscape orientation, should the flowers be going from left to right or the other way. 

Next consider how much to show.  Since they weren't in nice pots, I didn't want to include the whole plant.  Instead, I framed the image to get all of the flowers mostly centered in the top half of the image, including enough of the leaves and enough blank space to avoid crowding the edges.

Finally, lighting and background.  In the first shot, the flower was under an overhead light, so the entire thing was lit fairly nicely.  The wall in the background is a fairly neutral color (slightly varied because it also has overhead lights hitting in spots).  Still, I felt a starker background would work better.  I don't remember if I used my black winter jacket or a felt backdrop (which some friends had brought with them), but I definitely think the black makes things pop.  The third image is obviously a different plant, but the only other difference is that I moved it so that it wasn't under the overhead light.   This gets rid of any unwanted highlights and provides a slightly softer feel.

Those are some examples of what you can get if you want to take straight-forward image.  Here are some examples where I'm playing around with different techniques.

These are both intentionally long exposures which allowed me to create something more abstract.  In the past, I've found that I can get interesting shapes and colors by moving the lens (zoom, rotate, shake) while taking a picture.  However, doing this can also lose the identity of the subject (ie. you can't tell it is a photo of a flower).  So, this time I decided to see what would happen if I only played around for half the exposure.  So, on a 4 second exposure I'd sit for 2 seconds to embed a definite sense of the flower, but then shake things up as much as possible to overlay an abstract/painted feel to the overall image.  I suppose I could have tried doing this as a double exposure, but that might set details that I would rather not stand out (such as the label sticks still visible in the top left of the first image).  Overall, I'm quite happy with the results, especially in the second photo.

So, head out if you want (or bring something home).  Play.  Enjoy.  Even if the results are not what you were hoping for, you'll learn from the experience.

Macro - a lens that allows you to shoot at a 1:1 ratio or greater

Close-Up - a photograph that shows all or part of a subject.

The reason I'm starting this post with definitions is because the terms Macro and Close-Up overlap and tend to be used interchangeably.

For instance, this is an image of a butterfly that is the size of my thumbnail, but was taken with a telephoto lens.  Many people might incorrectly call it a macro shot since it shows the butterfly larger than life.

Eastern Tailed-BlueClick to Purchase

On the other hand, this image was taken with a macro lens, but it shows a full flower:

Blazing SaddlesOne of the fun features at the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum is their Iris Garden. This image was taken there. It is a "Blazing Saddles" tall bearded iris.

Now, you may notice that I titled this post "Extreme Close-Up".  I'm using that term for those images that had to be taken with a macro lens because they show a subject at much greater than a 1:1 ratio.  In this type of photo, the subject becomes much more abstract and revealing of the structure and patterns that make it up.  For instance, consider this self-portrait (or is it a landscape).

Ocular ReflectivityClick to Purchase

I was quite surprised the first time I tried something like this and discovered just how reflective the eye is (can you see the camera's reflection).

Extreme close-ups are especially fun with flowers because of the colors and textures that you can highlight when you look really closely at them.  This first flower becomes other worldly.  The second is a play of shapes and colors.

White Wings Tea RoseClick to purchase

orchidClick to Purchase

So, that leaves us with the technical question:  How do I go about capturing an image like this?  There are several key features you need.

1.  You probably need a macro lens.  These are subject that you need to be able to focus on from a very close distance (sometimes less than 6 inches).  While extension tubes can be used, a macro lens is much more flexible and better quality. [Note:  Extension tubes are empty rings that sit between a lens and the camera, thereby shifting the area of focus much closer.  However, they will also lose you several stops of light and can be very tricky to get to focus correctly).

2.  You need a tripod.  The close you are to a subject, the more obvious any movement becomes.  You need a tripod to remove any slight jitters you may cause from the equations.  A remote release might also help, but something similar can be attained by using the timer.

3.  The closer you are to a subject, the smaller the slice of the image that will be in focus.  You want the most depth of field you can get.  f22 is a good place to start.  At the same time, try to make your camera as square to the subject as possible.  The flatter the focal plane, the more apparent depth you get.

4.  Depending on how comfortable you are working with your processing software, experiment with focus stacking.  This is a process that lets you combine multiple photos of the same subject into a single image.  In this case, you take a shot that keeps the closes part of your subject in focus and then change the focus so a part just behind that is good, and then repeat until you have photos of the entire subject in focus.  I believe some cameras can do this for you automatically, so check you manual.

I hope you can get out and play with some subjects this winter.  It's fun and keeps you active.

There are a lot of clichés that photographers use when describing what happens when you trip the shutter on your camera.

"You take a picture, but you make a photo."

"People take snapshots, photographers take photos."

These are not meant to be disparaging.  Instead, they reflect the idea that there is more to photography than pressing a button.  There is a way of approaching a scene or subject that develops as you become more invested in the artform; a different way of seeing what is before you.  Once there, I don't know if you can actually take a snapshot anymore.

Here are some examples from the Arboretum's Conservatory this past weekend [Note:  The snapshots were taken with my lens at 50mm (which is close to how the eye sees a scene, neither zoomed or wide-angle) and my camera was set to Program (so I had no control over aperture or shutter speed).]

Here's an example of what might be a typical snapshot.  It shows many types of flowers sitting on their racks.  Photographically, though, it is a very chaotic and boring image since there is no subject.  Plus, the sunlight in the middle causes large bright areas that can be very distracting.

Another snapshot of the same scene improves it greatly by focusing much more closely on only two types of orchids.  However, the top half of the image is still very chaotic because of the bright light and shadows on the back wall.

The photographer will recognize those problems and (in this instance) focus on only one type of orchid at a time.  Using only the lower ones eliminates the sunlit wall.  Further blocking the sunlight with your body prevents distracting highlights and results in an acceptable image.  If I were to try this again, I might go even further and shoot a single bud to further reduce the background to a blur while framing it to block the wood dowel and black clip, which I find unattractive.

This one's not a bad snapshot.  The highlights on the fronds behind the flower are annoying but not too distracting.  However, the whole left side of the image is really not adding anything to the image.

So, here I've come much closer in and focused solely on the flower.  I also intentionally used a large aperture to blur the background.  Again, if I were to rework this image, I'd probably move a tiny bit to the left so that both types of orchid in the background are more integrated into the image, and the tiny bit of stem in the lower left corner would be removed.

The only real problem with this snapshot is the background.  It is busy.  The white sign(?) is distracting.  The wall and pipes are distracting and ugly.

Here again, focusing on a single bud vastly improves the image.  Taking it from the side eliminates the distracting background.  A large aperture further reduces background by blurring the leaves and making it so you can't see the lines in the brick.  In this case, I also held the camera over my head to get a straight-on angle.

None of this is to say that only avid photographers can get good photos.  That's obviously wrong.  It is the ability to consistently get better photos that comes with experience and practice.  It is knowing to look at the background and angle, the way light is hitting the subject (are there shadows on a person's face), understanding how the camera handles large contrasting areas of bright and dark, as well as basic composition.

This was an incredibly hard set of images for me to capture.  Not because of subject or environment, but from trying to intentionally ignore all the rules and approaches to photography that have become second nature.  I honestly don't think I can take a snapshot anymore.