For the photography enthusiasts out there, I used a wide aperture -- f/2.8 -- which, in macro terms, makes for an incredibly short depth of field.
In everyday language, a short depth of field means the distance from the part of your subject in-focus to where it becomes blurred is very short. And the closer you physically get to your subject, that depth of field narrows even farther. For these photos, I propped myself on my elbows about six inches from the dandelion.
What do I love about macro photography? Amplifying small details that can go unnoticed. Or finding the photograph in what may be seen as mundane.
And I love that by changing your focal point just half an inch, you create an entirely different image.
In this first photo, I focused on the front edge of the fuzzy seeds. The sun was behind and to the right of the flower, creating that subtle sheen and sparkle.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b3031/b3031b03be41c7ffccf9e822320ae4fefec6b966" alt=""
But it gives the photograph an entirely different look!
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2e1f1/2e1f1657d9ad581950a809b6b9af72cdab4529ca" alt=""
I really like both of these photos, which is why I chose to share both of them with you. I couldn't choose a favorite. What do you think?
Camera: Canon 40D, 1/125s, f/2.8 at ISO 100 and 200 at about 7:45 p.m.
I like the first one better. But I have seen some of your other photos also use very tight selective focus where the background wasn't as quite as blurry. Perhaps that is a product of the subject matter with its fine detail...?
ReplyDeleteThat could be a combination of things, but I think the most likely answer has to do with the nature of the background here. Since it's a smooth patch of grass, which is monochromatic and lacks much detail, it blends together very smoothly.
ReplyDeleteOr, I may have used a smaller aperture in those other photos, rendering the background slightly clearer.