What do you think of these flowers?

[RbnDave]

Two weeks ago I picked up a 500D close up filter for my Sigma 70-200. I don't do much macro so I figured the 500D would be a nice compromise instead of buying a real macro lens. I've taken well over 100 shots with it now. These are two of my best images captured. Let me know what you think. I could use some feedback.

http://www.pbase.com/image/29537809.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/29422742.jpg

Thanks for any input.

Dave

[LightHunter]

Wonderfull. The first is definitely my preferred!!

[Mark Kemp]

I agree , very nice. I am not a macro expert but I would be quite happy if they were my images. The quality certainly seems very similar to what you seems to get from macro shots, whatever you use to take them. I doubt if we could have guessed it was a filter not a dedicated macro lens if you hadn't told us.

[BlurHead]

The first one is awesome! Composition. colors, and all. The second is great too.

[RbnDave]

Thanks. Glad you liked my photos. The 500D gets sharp results, but it is sort of hard to work with. The DOF is very thin and the lens will only focus at a fixxed distance from the subject.

Glad you like the first one. I wasn't sure about the lighting and narrow DOF.

I like the second one except the flower goes out of focus in the upper right.

Macro is tuff. Both these shots were taken on windy days. It is a real test of patience.

[Meerkat17]

Wonderful composition on the first - the lighting is wonderful and I wouldn't worry about about the DOF as the eye naturally goes straight to the centre of the flower.

I've been taking a lot of wild flower shots of late and know only too well what you mean about "real test of patience" I seem to delete more than I take!

Well done
David

[RbnDave]

Thanks David,

It sounds like you are having better luck than me. Only 1 out 100 of my macros are keepers. I start my macro sesions with the best intensions. I get my tripod set up and use a remote release. With the 500D I have to make 200 small tripod adjustments just to get the camera in the correct possition to focus. Then, I have to make another 50 adjustments with my ballhead and zoom to get the correct composition. After i am all set, there is a gust of wind which moves my flowers around and I have to start the process all over again. When I am finally set up again, a bee or butterfly lands on a flower just outside my frame so I unhook my camera from the tripod and chase the bug arund the garden. This results in some pics that look good on the LCD so I say to myself, "why bother with that tripod? Just turn the flash up really bright and you can handhold." When I get home, I find out I have a CF card full of blurry flower pictures and I swear I'll use my tripod next time.

BTW, both the above pics were taken handheld. For the top picture, I was laying on my back in the dirt. It was the only one of ten from the same angle that turned out sharp. It is hard for me to feel like an artist when I am relying more on luck than skill.

[vfilby]

I really like the first one. The yellow highlights and the blue sky go together really well.

Relying solely on luck you would just take your camera and snap blindly as you wonder through the world.

A professional photographer shooting an model can go through enormous amouts of film. In one case I saw the guy had an assistent whose only job was to take which ever camera wasn't in use and put fresh film in it. The guy must have used 50 rolls of film.

The way I see it is you setup the shot and selected it, that takes skill. Getting all the settings right is really hard, which is why the pro's snap like crazy then choose the one the looks the best. It seems that many pro photographers rely on the 'shootgun' approach.

Vince