It was a pleasure to see your pictures.
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: 17 Sep 2013
- Branch: CROYDON
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Branch Show
- Location: Surrey
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 8064
- Joined: 08 Jul 2007
- Branch: NOTTINGHAM
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Branch President
- Location: Nottingham
I wondered if I was putting too many pictures in of the same species, and not just the pretty ones either. However I was trying to show variation. We get a wrong idea of plants in cultivation since often the most attractive forms are brought into cultivation, but are not always typical of the species in habitat.
Also these days with most DSLR cameras there is no excuse for taking only a few shots if you have the opportunity. A 32Gb compact flash card in my Nikon D200, which is an old model now can store 1400 images, even shooting RAW. They then can be transferred to computer and used again. The newer cameras can take even larger cards. Contrast that with the days of roll film like Kodachrome when I think I paid about £8 for the last 36 exposure roll, including processing. I certainly would have not taken that many exposures.
Even smartphones can hold quite a few shots and are now good enough for Web use.
What would I do different if I had the chance again? I think I would have taken a small tripod for close up shots, since hand holding I could not use slow enough shutter speeds to be able to use the smaller apertures for increased depth of field, and that shows on the Thelocephala's. Something like this little Cullmann which folds flat and is easy to carry. My home tripod, a MK1 Benbo, is built like a North Sea oil rig and too heavy to go to habitat.
Edit:- I also should have said I broke my golden rule of never using autofocus for close up's. Autofocus is inaccurate close up since in order to spread the available depth of field the point you need to focus on often contains nothing for autofocus to lock on to. Autofocus therefore locks on to a point either in front or behind the desired focus point, so wastes some of the depth of field available. Therefore the human eyeball on the focusing screen is still a more accurate way of spreading the depth of field over the important parts of the subject than autofocus.
Hi Nobby, just read your post on the Ritter Diaries, I wondered if you were Norbert Sarnes. Therefore I should meet you at The Cactus Explorers Weekend in September since I have already booked.
Ritter in fact signed the first two volumes of his Kakteen in S. Amerika for me, since I bought them direct from him.
Thanks again for your comments, because there was not much feedback I did not know whether my pictures and the genera concerned were of general interest.
yes I'm Norbert Sarnes for my whole life.
I'm looking forward to meet you at the Cactus Explorer meeting.
I hope everyone will understand me - but we will let our pictures speak for us.