Carnivorous!Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent. Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature. Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread. Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Previous topic • Next topic
8 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Carnivorous!Last weekend, I was trekking through nearby Crosslands Reserve when I noticed some fascinating carnivorous plants along the trail right near the start. And since I just *happened* to have my camera with me, I was well placed to spend a rather embarrassing amount of time trying to capture images of these remarkable plants.
The flowers are amazingly small, in most cases barely more than 5mm long. They have some kind of adhesive liquid drops at the tip of their small... uh... stamen-like appendages. An insect settles on the flower, gets stuck... and somehow gets digested. From a photographic perspective, the biggest issue comes from the presence of even the slightest breeze, given how small and thin the plant is. Most of the photos below were shot at f2.8 and ISO1600 by necessity, to keep the shutter speeds up high enough. Here are some highlights: Quite pretty, for a ruthless killer: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/61147501@N00/1090082285/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1321/1090082285_cbd1d7d50b.jpg" width="333" height="500" alt="zIMGP1808" /></a> A pair of them, happily looking all Alien. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/61147501@N00/1090945658/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1050/1090945658_d19b5fedd9.jpg" width="335" height="500" alt="zIMGP1791" /></a> Looks like a hovering craft of some kind: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/61147501@N00/1090083271/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1408/1090083271_3c0cf0af52.jpg" width="333" height="500" alt="zIMGP1811" /></a> C&C highly appreciated! Pentax istDS+K10D. Pentax 50mm f1.4, Sigma 10-20mm, Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro, Kit Lenses. http://www.redbubble.com/people/berndt2
Damn I forgot to comment when I first looked. The first 2 are great.
Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything. *** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
Berndt these are great. Good spot in the first place and you've done them justice. I must admit, I found myself wanting to look up inside them but I guess you would have had to have dug yourself a trench to do that while still leaving them in their natural positions.
Colours in the first two are just glorious. Simon
D300 l MB-D10 l D70 l SB-800 l 70-200 VR l TC 17-E l 18-70 f3.5-4.5 l 70-300 f4-5.6 l 50 f1.4 l 90 Macro f2.8 l 12-24 f4 http://www.redbubble.com/people/manta
Just love the first two, you really nailed them. Having just done some flower macros, you did great on these,
cheers, André Photography, as a powerful medium of expression and communications, offers an infinite variety of perception, interpretation and execution. Ansel Adams
(misc Nikon stuff)
Previous topic • Next topic
8 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|