Translucent umbrella for wildflower macros

[anthonyd]

Killing something beautiful in nature just to take a picture of it

Hmmm...ya can't kill it for a picture...are ya allowed to take a picture of it, then eat it? :

I always photograph my endangered wildflower stuffed turducken before eating it.

 

[mackguyver]

Alas, a lot of people don't seem to care if there's a really "wild" background, it looks like in a zoo/tropical garden or if it's shot in a studio :-\

I have no idea what you're talking about - surely people like National Geographic don't share that opinion:

2012 Nat Geo Photo Contest Winners - Grand Prize Winner
/
Should Photographs Captured in Zoos Be Considered Legitimate ‘Nature’ Pics?

 

[Marsu42]

Alas, a lot of people don't seem to care if there's a really "wild" background, it looks like in a zoo/tropical garden or if it's shot in a studio :-\

I have no idea what you're talking about - surely people like National Geographic don't share that opinion:

Thanks for the interesting link!

At least with the free range horses I often shoot there's a huge difference between "zoo" and "wild" (or as wild as horses get in central europe). Next to the "fence in the background" problem, wild animals have behavior patterns you don't find in the zoo, esp. when it comes to interaction *between* animals. You can capture their physical form and basic behavior, but what an animal species defines is imho mostly lost in close captivity.

However, the NatGeo award shows that the difference is too elusive to make it into mainstream accepted knowledge. I suspect that's because there are so many amateur zoo photogs and visotors around that a big media corporation is too afraid to tackle the issue. Personally, I disagree completely with the stance quoted in the article:

As it happens, while I know some photographers feel that pictures of captive animals are inferior to photos captured of animals in the wild, as wonderful as it is to see animals in their natural habitat, I’ve always thought this is a ridiculous way to think. A Tiger, for example, in captivity is every bit as awesome, amazing, and gorgeous as a Tiger in the wild

 

[mackguyver]

Alas, a lot of people don't seem to care if there's a really "wild" background, it looks like in a zoo/tropical garden or if it's shot in a studio :-\

I have no idea what you're talking about - surely people like National Geographic don't share that opinion:

Thanks for the interesting link!

At least with the free range horses I often shoot there's a huge difference between "zoo" and "wild" (or as wild as horses get in central europe). Next to the "fence in the background" problem, wild animals have behavior patterns you don't find in the zoo, esp. when it comes to interaction *between* animals. You can capture their physical form and basic behavior, but what an animal species defines is imho mostly lost in close captivity.

However, the NatGeo award shows that the difference is too elusive to make it into mainstream accepted knowledge. I suspect that's because there are so many amateur zoo photogs and visotors around that a big media corporation is too afraid to tackle the issue. Personally, I disagree completely with the stance quoted in the article:

As it happens, while I know some photographers feel that pictures of captive animals are inferior to photos captured of animals in the wild, as wonderful as it is to see animals in their natural habitat, I’ve always thought this is a ridiculous way to think. A Tiger, for example, in captivity is every bit as awesome, amazing, and gorgeous as a Tiger in the wild

I agree completely, but I'm sure we're in the minority. I can tell you that many of the most popular photos in photo contests and places like 500px and Flickr were shot with captive animals or those in game parks, like Cabárceno Wildlife Park in Spain.

 

[NancyP]

Anatomy is the same, behavior is not. Personally I prefer to see behavioral photos or photos indicating adaptation to the environment (where's Waldo - hint, looks like a dead leaf). And part of my motivation is to show what you can see if you look closely in your local parks. Publicist for the local birds, fungi, insects, etc.

 

[aclarkimages]

I have a Lastolite TriGrip Diffuser but never tried it for flowers. It's possible to hold the diffuser in one hand (it has a handle or "grip" and is triangular in shape) and the camera in your right hand. It would be less than ideal though as you'd have limited range and movability. But what it would let you do is get a quick idea of how the flower would look with some test shots before setting up a tripod.

It also folds up fairly small. A bit expensive though and tbh I haven't really used it much. Seemed like a good idea at the time .... Hmmmm maybe I should try this flower thing.

That's exactly what I use - I have large two stop version and a smaller difflector version that also serves as a reflector. The bigger version is nice because it blocks a bigger area, but I wish it was the 1 stop version as the light tends to get a little flat with it. Alas, I needed the 2-stop version for mid-day portraits, which is what I bought it for...

I use a few of the small pocketboxes from Westcott that velcro with a strap to the head of flashes. Definitely work will for diffusing light and if you want more you can use the diffusion cap on the flash in addition to the box.