Orchid Photography:

I hope many of you would like to discuss some of your own questions as well as tips and observations. Please take this general subject in any direction you'd like to.

I've been playing around with secondary lighting as a possible tool for easily enhancing both plant viewing and photography. I'm certainly not talking about anything fancy or expensive. In fact the kind of lighting I've been playing with is just ordinary LED flashlights.

The pictures shown here are of the same flower, though taken several days apart and different times of day, but the main "focus" that I wanted to mention is in the pouch of this Paph Delrosi that I recently posted about on the March Madness topic. The top photo was taken with no additional light and actually shows the flower as the eye see's it. In particular the the pouch of this Delrosi is rather white and ordinary. The second picture was taken while holding an LED flashlight just off the lower right corner of the photo. It's positioned so the light is passing through the pouch from behind. The result is the appearance of new spotted detail that appears to be visible from the front.

Though I believe this makes for an intriguing enhancement, my main question is simply if others would consider this a legitimate photo or deceptive trick? I find that it's very often quite "illuminating" to view all my plants and flowers with just such a flashlight. Begonia leaves often take on a new life of their own when so back-lit.

Thanks in advance for any points of view on this or any other aspect of viewing--and capturing what such a simple light can reveal.

Allan

This picture is of Begonia 'Little Brother Montgomery' back-lit. In fact the two larger leaves are shown from the back of the leaves, while the smaller leaf is the top-side of the leaf. With even lighting from the other side, The leaves photograph nearly the same front and back.

You can compare this picture with a plant photographed under more normal lighting at Logee's:

'http://www.logees.com/prodinfo.asp?number=B3105-2

Oh. To keep this subject at least partially on topic (i.e. Orchids), my 'blue' Phal. violacea can be seen on near the right edge of the photo--LOL.

Allan

Allan, this is a good idea. I especially need to spend some time on this thread and get your advice. All I need is the time.

Okay, I've had a chance to digest your comments and questions. All I can say is consider the source.

I think using lighting to enhance visualization of otherwise obscure features of a plant is not deceptive. I also think if the flower is one color but the camera shows something different a little tweak is okay. What I object to is when photos are grossly saturated or recolored. If you show details with special lighting that would not otherwise be noted in this online forum you are helping viewers to see what makes this plant special to you and maybe stirring interest. It doesn't matter whether it's the flower or the leaf. I think the objective is to show the plant in the most honest way. if you see warts, spots and dimples and can capture the moment it's great to share with the rest of us.

In the meantime, I need to learn things as simple as adjusting aperture so that I can get better depth in my photos of flowers and plants. I am still novice after several years with a decent camera.

Laurel,

Thanks for starting the discussion. I agree with you. I generally feel that the only time an enhancement like the Paph. Delrosi above wouldn't be appropriate would be if I were shooting for archival purposes. Beyond that if the enhancement does begin to give a false impression, then I would make a point to mention the enhancement when posting it. But in general, I believe the creative use of light falls under the heading of artistic license.

I also agree that one should be most circumspect about color enhancements, either when shooting or post processing a horticultural photo. I believe it is OK if the color modification intent is to more accurately portray the natural color of the flower. For post-processing color, whenever possible, I place the plant on the desk next to me and only accept color modifications increases color accuracy, say to add back a little blue in a purple flower that came out too red.

Solving the red-blue balance seems to be especially problematic with orchids. This is another reason for packing small flashlights with me for shooting. The so-called "white light" LEDs are on the cool side, so that the color can be cooled-down (or blue enhanced) with this supplemental light. Halogen flashlights render the subject in a warmer light. When I'm looking at the digital camera's display and I see the color is too red or too blue, I pick the right light and find the best rendering in real time. Of course, manually setting the camera's white balance will also help. I'll sometimes play with both approaches as the overall artistic effect can be quite different. Additional light sources can soften the overall impression.

Depth of field (DOF) is a major problem in macro photography. All things being equal, the smaller the lens opening, or aperture, the greater the range of distances that will appear in focus. [The larger the f/stop, the smaller the lens opening] The factors that allow the smallest lens openings are more light and longer exposure times. Shooting in the brightest light will help increase the depth of field. Of course, an automatic exposure in brighter light is going to help, but not optimally, as auto exposure in brighter light means both smaller aperture (good) and faster exposure time (not so good). Using the auto-macro setting should help more. Perhaps the best suggestion I can make is to manually adjust the exposure time to the slowest exposure time that you can hold steady, perhaps 1/60 sec., or 1/30 sec. if your camera has image stabilization. An easy way to do this is to first take a photo or two on automatic and then view the picture with display on so that you can see the exposure time that the picture was taken with. If it is a relatively fast time, like 1/500 sec., then you will get much better DOF if you turn on your manual control, set the exposure time to a longer exposure and retake the picture. Later, when you download the pictures, you'll be able to compare the results. It may suggest that in that the exposure time is too slow to hand hold. If so make the next exposure a little quicker.

Of course DOF is exactly where a tripod can make a huge difference as it allows you to safely select even longer exposures, like 1/4 sec. or 1/8.

I hope this is of some help.

Allan

I need to be less pillar to post and study photography more carefully. The problem I have with any auto setting is that the capture point, on specimens as small as mine, is not in the auto range. I can't get the camera to focus on flower detail when the flower is less than a quarter inch. It wants to generalize the specimen. I am using a Cannon 60mm EF-S macro lens. To get a detail like those i aspire to would take better understanding of the camera workings. You have explained it well as has my SO, I need to absorb and apply the advice.

I was a bit taken aback to see someone with a collapsible white tent and huge lights to photo orchids. Her photos are incredible! She said she "only" paid $150 for the set up. I was impressed but truthfully I'd have spent the money on orchids. lol

I can better see your problem. I think you need better macro capability in addition to more light. The least expensive way to get in closer is with "close-up" lenses. These are lenses that screw onto the end of your lenses like filters. They came in sets of increasing magnification like Nos. 1,2 4 and 10. You get them in the same size as your lens cap. See Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001AO00C8
or search the phrase at Amazon: Close-Up Macro Filter Set

This 4-piece set with a case and for the large diameter of my Macro-zoom lens costs under $20. They can be stacked to get intermediate magnifications. They generally allow you to get closer and with greater magnification, though the main compromise is some compromise in DOF. However, these are great for small flowers. Lens extension tubes and bellows are another way of increasing macro magnification.

One last option that is more expensive, but adds great versatility to all your lenses, is a 2x lens converter. A good quality one can run $200-$300, but this will double the power of your lens from 60mm to 120mm including your macro magnification. In years past with my last film SLR, I used a combination of a 2x converter and the lesser power close-up lenses for extreme macros with very good results.

One (or more) of these accessories, along with a good lighting set-up like your friends could really turn things around. Another great advantage of more light is that it allows very accurate manual focusing with your lens "stepped down" so you can preview your full DOF in the eyepiece.

Allan