# 1st Attempt at African Violet flowers



## katsrevenge (Jan 5, 2018)

I think I have a long way to go...good thing it's bonkers cold outside.


 

 
Manual focused 35mm with extension tubes.


----------



## beagle100 (Jan 7, 2018)

katsrevenge said:


> I think I have a long way to go...good thing it's bonkers cold outside.[TACH]
> Manual focused 35mm with extension tubes.



looks like the pic could use more "DOF" .... smaller aperture?
but it's amazing any flower could bloom in this sub-freezing cold
(unless you're in the southern hemisphere ... Africa or Australia)
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## katsrevenge (Jan 7, 2018)

beagle100 said:


> katsrevenge said:
> 
> 
> > I think I have a long way to go...good thing it's bonkers cold outside.[TACH]
> ...



I think the DOF was smallish... I think I had it around f11? I don't remember and it's a manual lens so there is no data. Next time I will try an even smaller f stop. 

I think I just need to get better at focusing on tiny things! LOL

These little guys live on a table in my kitchen underneath a few lights. I always keep some stuff growing through the winter to stay sane. AVs are easy enough to bloom under even a cheap purple LED plant light. I mean..We had a high of 12F today. It was great to be in the double digits!


----------



## Steven Dillon (Jan 10, 2018)

It's been cold here too, but our low (14F) was above your high so I can't complain too much.  Agree on the DOF, a little more would be better.  Also, be careful not to place the focal point to close to the center (in most cases, that's not a good thing as it tends to make an image more static).


----------



## katsrevenge (Jan 18, 2018)

Finally had some decent looking flowers mature (I have a slight bug issue, grrr)
In interest of full disclosure, I am using extension tubes on lensbaby. Absolute full sharpness is just not going to happen. I did stop down quite a bit for these, and they are much clearer! (I want to eventually get an actual macro lens...but it will have to wait until I'm no longer unwillingly job free.)




Creamy AV by Kat M., on Flickr




Yellow Balls by Kat M., on Flickr

And for fun, here is an orchid. They are very weird up close.



Flower-Mantis! by Kat M., on Flickr


----------



## SquarePeg (Jan 18, 2018)

How do you like the Lensbaby?  I’m considering one for artsy flower stuff.  Are you using a Velvet or a Sweet Optic?  What focal length and what length extension tube?


----------



## davholla (Jan 18, 2018)

I like the ones in post 5 better, but I think further out (with more of the flower showing) would work better.


----------



## katsrevenge (Jan 18, 2018)

SquarePeg said:


> How do you like the Lensbaby?  I’m considering one for artsy flower stuff.  Are you using a Velvet or a Sweet Optic?  What focal length and what length extension tube?



I don't have the velvet lens, I wish I did, I did get a Trio 28 that has a velvet glass on it but I haven't used it for anything here. 

These were taken with the lensbaby extension tubes, 24mm total. I used the Edge 50 for the last batch. I do have a sweet 35 optic too, it gets a lot closer, but I really would need to set up a space for a tripod. I'm too shaky with that closeness free-hand. They're also selling magnification filters to put on the front of the newer optics now too. But maybe those might be cheaper off brand..? Haven't looked TBH.

I seriously love mine.  I think I've had one on my camera more or less since I got it. I put a 'creative' optic in a muse body then walked around in a snowstorm.. and really loved what I got out of the camera. The sweet in the composer makes for ethereal trees. Have yet to really get to use them on people. I also really like distortion and oddities in images, so that really influences how I feel about them.


----------



## katsrevenge (Jan 18, 2018)

davholla said:


> I like the ones in post 5 better, but I think further out (with more of the flower showing) would work better.



Are those still considered macro? Or just close up? I'll admit to a lot of fuzziness on what is and isn't macro. I like those shots too, I was just trying to get closer, if I could.


----------



## razashaikh (Jan 20, 2018)

Beautiful shots.


----------



## davholla (Jan 23, 2018)

katsrevenge said:


> davholla said:
> 
> 
> > I like the ones in post 5 better, but I think further out (with more of the flower showing) would work better.
> ...


Well strictly speaking close up, but saying that I think the skills of taking a whole plant is not the same as taking something bigger like a person.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jan 23, 2018)

My understanding of macro is 1:1 or more (usually greater than life sized) but I think the term is pretty widely used to represent anything close-up.


----------



## katsrevenge (Jan 23, 2018)

SquarePeg said:


> My understanding of macro is 1:1 or more (usually greater than life sized) but I think the term is pretty widely used to represent anything close-up.


Mine too, or at least a 1:2 to even be thought of as close to macro. But I will not claim to be any kind of expert. I did study art in college, but my study of photography has been primarily through youtube videos like the ones B&H puts out, LOL. 



davholla said:


> Well strictly speaking close up, but saying that I think the skills of taking a whole plant is not the same as taking something bigger like a person.



I agree there! I do like photoing plants in situ... but it's cold and dead outside now. Alas, I don't really have the room or the cat wrangling skills to set up a big enough light box to do that other kind of image. And... no one wants to see my groady grow table, lol, so in situ is out for now.


----------

