Galanthus to mid February 2007

[David Nicholson]

Is there somewhere in the old forum that Mark explains his set-up for taking such clear close-ups?  I was going to post a picture, compared it to Mark's, and decided I had better take another one.

How can I search the old forum?  I tried searching to find some pictures that I posted last year, but the search function on this new forum only works with new posts.  I went to the old forum and couldn't see a search button, so just scrolled through the months until I found my pictures.  If one wanted to find information and didn't know when (or whether) it had been posted, it would be a very long slog to find it.

Hi Diane,

John has answered your second point. On you first point, and Lord knows I'm no expert as some of my recent posts will amply illustrate, Mark's undoubted expertise and experience have a lot to do with the quality of his photographs. Equally the type of camera and its facility for close up work have a lot to do with it. I am going to treat myself to a book "The A-Z of Creative Digital Photography" by Lee Frost. It will probably help me, it might help you too.

[mark smyth]

hello all just back from an evening meal with ZZ

no real secrets but I can tell you there are many rubbish shots taken too. I nearly always take photos of Galanthus and Crocus with a plain background. Ian Y showed us last year in one of his bulb logs. The card I use is a very pale grey almost white. The camera doesnt 'see it'. My camera when set on macro can go in as close as 2cm. I dont use the macro like this. I set the camera on macro and then zoom in with the camera's telephoto function. That keeps me about 5 inches / 13 cm away from the subject. All are hand held. I usually take 3 shots. The camera is set on it's second highest setting. This allows me to crop the subject. Below are the original image reduced to 600 pixels wide and the same original cropped and saved to 600 pixels wide

I'll answer any other queries from the Young's tomorrow. Have to go pack. I knew I shouldnt have gone out

[mark smyth]

It's good that people have faith in my photography skills. The upper photo is G. 'Atkinsii' form 'Lyn'. A big brute compared to 'Atkinsii'. I'll take a comparison shot on Thursday

[Diane Whitehead]

Ah yes, your last photos look familiar, Mark.  The camera ignores the white flowers and decides that anything else in view is what it should focus on - the neighbour's garage, background ferns, anything but the snowdrops.

And you have suggested a good way to keep back far enough not to throw a camera (or photographer) shadow on the subject  - I will experiment using "macro" plus "zoom" and background grey card.

[Paddy Tobin]

Diane,

If I may comment of taking photographs: I presume you are using a digital camera. In such a case the camera will do the focusing automatically, though this is not completely trustworthy as you will see from Mark's postings above the camera sometimes cannot 'see' a particular colour, for example the white of the snowdrop and in that case it will insist on focusing on something in the background. Or conversely, as Mark does, you can provide a background which the camera cannot 'see' and this forces it to focus on the flower.

Personally, I prefer to take the photographs in the garden but this has the problem of wind causing movement and consequently there is a difficulty in focusing again. Taking the flowers in situ is more natural I think but I see the advantages of taking them indoors or at least in shelter. If snowdrops are brought inside they will open after a while in the heat and this will allow a better photograph. In the garden it is often necessary to visit a flower over several days to capture it at its best. There will also be no wind indoors and so the flowers will stay steady and make it easier to focus. This indoor photography seems to have gained popularity for illustration purposes in particular and, I suppose, does show the flower without the distraction of the background if that is what you want.

Mark points out the practice of cropping your original photograph to select a closer view of the subject. As the specifications of cameras are constantly improving you will be able to crop without any loss of clarity or definition to the image.

Another benefit of the digital camera is that taking multiple images leads to no extra cost. I generally take many photographs of a flower and then when I view them on the computer later I discard most of them, keeping only those which are good enough. It is much easier to get into the habit of taking multiple photographs and discarding the unwanted ones later rather than having to return to the subject the next day perhaps. Some cameras allow 'bracketing' which means that the camera will save three images for each photograph taken, one at what it calculates to be the correct exposure, one underexposed and one overexposed. Regularly enough the underexposed image will be the one which best captures a white or yellow flower as these reflect light particularly strongle and can come out with a glare in normal settings.

The best thing about the digital camera is that your mistakes don't cost you anything. At one time I did a lot of B & W photography, processing and printing  my own. In this situation one took care over a photograph, assessed the lighting and composition with great care so as not to be wasting film. Nowadays, especially with a good sized  memory card, one can take as many photographs of a subject as one wishes and feel sure that at least one of them will be of good quality.

Keep trying and trying, take more and more photographs and you will become more accustomed to your camera and the results will improve.

Have fun, say cheese, Paddy

[snowdropman]

There is a 3 day 'Sneeuwklokjesfeest' (Snowdrop Festival) being held at De Boschhoeve, Arnhem, Holland from 1st - 3rd March 2007 & full details can be found at http://www.boschhoeve.nl/

[Brian Ellis]

Hello Maggi

What I am itching to know is if Mark brought his vase of snowdrops, and if so what did you score 

Mark I saw lots of elwesii labelled as nivalis in a garden centre (I stopped for lunch), picking over them I found one with four petals.  Is this common or likely to be stable?  Enjoy East Lambrook, I hear from one of my friends that you will be speaking there too.

Brian

[Maggi Young]

Let me scratch that itch for you, Brian! Mark did indeed bring his snowdrop. In spite of airport security giving him some close questioning he was able to convince them that the very small amount of water keeping the cut blooms fresh was unlikely to be acid, since the flowers were sitting happily in it and not frazzling, so he, and the flowers  arrived safely.  All the flowers were ones he showed us in his super talk so we were invited to identify them, having just seen the photos. Frankly, I hadn't a clue, but they were all lovely! Others present knew more than I, of course.  It was a great evening, full of flowers and homour, surely the best method to ensure the retention of information that I know of!
Will get photo of Mark's fancy flower display gadget before he goes home. I now have a very select flower display of my own in an old ink pot- Mark gave me the blooms! And, John Finch, there is a WASP!
Much smaller than I expected and, in truth, not one I'd covet!! Sorry! It has a dainty charm but there was a bigger, chubby one I liked better. I'll have to go and check what its name is!  It is "Ketton"
More later!

[Brian Ellis]

Frankly, I hadn't a clue, but they were all lovely!

Oh but you are a showing your true colours Maggi, not SAGA at all

[Paddy Tobin]

There you are Maggi, going all chubby on us again.

Paddy

[David Nicholson]

Careful Maggi, you'll get hooked

[Maggi Young]

Paddy, with a figure like mine, how am I to hide the truth!! Not for nothing am I the fat lady who sings!

Brian, fear not, I am a woman of strong Scots character;though as yon Irishman who lived in England said, "I can resist anything but temptation"

[KentGardener]

Hi Maggi

I am glad that you are have having a fun time whilst Mark is visiting (and hope you have recovered from your obvious pleasure at his breathing down your neck on the first night!…)

I have never actually seen a Galanthus ‘wasp’ in the flesh but have been won over by the wonderful description in ‘the book’ which is as follows:

“From a distance the shape of the flowers suggests something winged, moving freely in the breeze, even swarming over the tight clump….”  “…that bear markings that really do suggest a striped thorax.  Not a classic beauty, but a classic snowdrop.”

Luckily a very kind member of this forum has offered to give me bulb if his have increased sufficiently this year.  Another plus for taking part in the SRGC forum.

With my best wishes

John

[snowdropman]

I have never actually seen a Galanthus ‘wasp’ in the flesh but have been won over by the wonderful description in ‘the book’ which is as follows:

“From a distance the shape of the flowers suggests something winged, moving freely in the breeze, even swarming over the tight clump….”  “…that bear markings that really do suggest a striped thorax.  Not a classic beauty, but a classic snowdrop.”

Hi John - don't lose your faith - Maggi just does not know what she is missing - this is one of those snowdrops that looks fantastic in a clump!

[snowdropman]

there was a bigger, chubby one I liked better. I'll have to go and check what its name is!  It is "Ketton"

Far be it for me to suggest any national bias, but are you sure that it was 'Ketton', rather than 'Edinburgh Ketton'