fagus grandifolia new leaves and flwr buds

Got a few shots of new beech foliage and flower buds today. I've never enjoyed this tree up close and personal before.

Scott

One more:

Scott

What camera are you using?

I have a pretty nice Olympus but have trouble with close-ups even on the mode designed for close-ups. It's like the batteries aren't strong enough and the picture always comes out blurry. My camera is a Stylus 410 Digital. Great for specimen photos, but have to get lucky to get a clear close-up.

I'm a Beech nut!

Later,

Dax

That first one is one of your very best IMHO!

Dax, for extreme close-ups you probably need to go into your camera's menu and do some custom selections. Once you figure it out the routine will be easy enough. On my Canon Pro-1 set in "Program" mode, I just hit "menu", go up three lines to "supermacro", and hit "select". Then, when necessary, I use the manual focus mode to selectively focus on the detail I want. You also should set your aperature to a high number, unless you really want to focus on one pollen grain instead of the whole flower.

Guy S.

Thanks Guy. The supermacro is what is very slow on my camera. "Aperature," that's one I'll have to look into though I understand the concept.

Much appreciated,

Dax

It might help a little more if I knew how to spell "aperture"!

In general, the owner's manual for a decent digital camera contains about 200 pages of stuff you'll probably never use and about 50 pages you can't live without. The trick is finding the right 50 pages to suit your own needs.

After a general reading to get a feel for it, try to look up one feature at a time, right before you plan to use that function. Then shoot a bunch of practice shots using those settings (film is cheap with these cameras!), starting the settings from scratch each time, and you'll never need to look that procedure up again. Besides, one of those practice shots just might turn out to be spectacular!

If someone out there is planning to buy a new digital camera, here are a couple of suggestions:

1. Get the highest res you can afford. You can always dumb down the settings or compress the images for web use, but that potential award-winning shot needs to be at least 5-6 MP and preferably higher. They have some excellent 8-10 MP cameras available now for about $1000. Or if you have big bucks to spend, go better.

2. Find a camera with a moveable monitor. It really helps you shoot ground-level flower shots without getting grass stains on your belly, and it allows you to take some candid shots while facing at a right angle to your subject (sneaky!). It will even let you hold the camera high overhead to shoot a hanging acorn, or shoot over the tops of cars, people, or other obstructions.

3. Very important for tree photos -- find one with optical zoom potential that ranges down to 28mm equivalency. Many cameras go down only to 35mm, and that's not enough for shooting trees in forests or other enclosed settings.

4. If you don't mind all the cumbersome gear, look at the new 35mm digital cameras with interchangeable lenses that look and feel just like the old film cameras. But, just like those old monsters, they can be bulky and heavy to carry on planes or on ling hikes. Of course, you'll still have it a lot easier than people like Brady who lugged large-format cameras and glass plates around on pack mules.

5. One more thing: I almost never post a digital pic straight out of the camera. If it's worth posting on your web site (or even on this forum) it's worth cropping, cleaning up, leveling the horizon, correcting the perspective, fixing red-eyes and spinach-teeth, and tweaking everything to make the image look as it did (or should have) to your own eyes. Anything less is laziness -- always take pride in your work, whether it's trees or photos, because either might outlive you. I have published hundreds of photos, and I always know I'll regret any that aren't perfect. (Now, if I kood just becumb a bettr typest and spelllar . . . )

Guy S.

Went back for more photos of this tree today, but came across another one in the same neighborhood. Got a few pictures of older leaves. Should have been obvious to me by the emerging leaves previously, that these trees are in fact some cultivar of Fagus sylvatica.

Scott

I'm not always a fan of red foliage, but this coppery tone I like very much. And, of course, you cannot beat a beech.

Scott

And, lastly, one without backlighting.

Scott