dar_clicks Loc: Utah

After several days of rainy and/or strong breezy weather there was finally a chance to try again to photograph the tiny flowers that decided to appear this Spring. I've found out that they are storksbill -- a name that comes from the long white pointed features on the plant. It has also been used as a medicinal herb. If you look it up on the interweb some sites list more uses than others. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be good for an old camera guy who is trying to do photography while down on the ground. ... achy ... You can also look up all the countries these plants came from. They seem to be plentiful here in the Southwest. ... and although a weed, I still think they are more attractive and interesting than bluegrass. ;^)

Below are:
* Two photos (front & side view) with better results than the ones I tried to get a few days ago (no wind this time & I looked up some stuff to figure out settings I'd forgotten how to use on the flash). These were taken at 1.5X true macro & not cropped.
* A close-up snapshot that is not macro to illustrate the leaves and give a size comparison next to a dandelion -- probably more meaningful than saying how many millimeters big it is (10 mm, give or take).
* One of my lousy shots (in a round frame) from the first day just to document the only one I saw so far having six petals! There are a few others with only four petals but nearly all have five and five is what the interweb sources say as well.
* At the very end is a table of the settings I used and an explanation of why I went a little outside the box of usual recommended settings for macro work. I did not include any "specs" for the snapshot and the round photo.

Front View

(Download)

Side View

(Download)

Illustration of Leaves & Size Comparison w/Dandelion

(Download)

The Only One I Found With Six Petals!

(Download)

Information for First Two Photos

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

Very nice pictures and commentary. I think you made good choices with your settings. I may be wrong, but it feels to me that degradation from diffraction is not so noticeable until one gets into mag that is higher than 1:1.

rwilson1942 Loc: Houston, TX

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Leicaflex Loc: Cymru

dar_clicks Loc: Utah

Thanks, Mark. From all the references and comments I have read there is no doubt in my mind that diffraction from very small apertures does degrade image quality, and certainly not just with macro applications. You bring up a good point that was in line with my thinking -- I only wanted to have some photos of the storksbill blossoms to pass along to some others in e-Mail and a post here on UHH. For that, total perfection is not necessary (yeah, like I could achieve that working with these old bones contorted at ground level!).

The first photo was a little bit under-exposed and I thought it was okay until I noticed later that it seemed darker in e-Mail and especially on UHH, although the UHH download looks a little better than it does on the thread's page. My eyes must have been off. For a repeat attempt I'd try 1/250th sec. but I'd rather point my camera at something else next time out!

In-camera magnification was measured and greater than 1:1 -- I sometimes get confused which number should be on which side of the colon so I expressed it as 1.5X, which is 1.5:1 unless I'm turned around again ...