Thursday, September 13, 2007

the difference of macro

in the time that i've used digital cameras, i've been disappointed in that i couldn't take "close up" shots of my subjects. every time i tried it, the pictures turned out blurry and were not useful. rather than "waste" my pictures, i took pictures from further back and then spent time on the computer editing. i always ended up w/ good pictures, but not as good or as easy as i would've liked!

the amazing difference that macro photography provides is just shocking at first notice. this pictures was taken by my sony 10.1 megapixel cybershot at about 10 inches from this leaf. this was just a snapshot with no tripod used, but many nature or natural shots will not have the time for a tripod. live things don't stop long enough for tripod placement and adjustment!

the leaf is obviously blurry and basically not usable for a scientific drawing or closeup study of the leaf. if this were a picture of someone's face, where i wanted details to show, the blur would've ruined the picture.

by learning how to use the macro function on the camera, the same picture from the same distance taken as "macro" looks totally different. the blur is gone and now this picture is usable as a reference photo for a scientific illustration, a record of growth, or a part of your photography collection.

macro is definitely a function on your camera that you NEED to learn how to use and should use in your photography sessions. it makes a huge difference -- especially when you can compare the pictures side by side to see the amazing differences!

3 Comments:

Anonymous m t cherian said...

can i know the model of your camera and the cost. my impression was that canon was a better camera.
mtcherian@yahoo.com

Mon Oct 29, 02:03:00 AM CDT  
Blogger jill said...

i'm sure there are models of cameras nicer and more expensive than mine, and the canon eos or canon rebel is one of them. i have a sony cybershot 10.1 megapixel, which is a higher megapixel than the eos or rebel was offering at the time. to my knowledge, the highest megapixel available for purchase at that time was a 14.1 and that was like $15,000.

BUT, in what i was looking for in a camera -- the sony fit my needs better.

it's the size of a deck of cards instead of the size of a 4pk of cappacino.
the lens slides in when not in use instead of being the same size all the time.
the cost was $400 rather than $1000 - $1500
if it gets broken in trekking around w/ it -- i'm more likely to be able to afford to replace it.

i'm sure there are other reasons at the time i had for the purchase. i spent over a month looking at cameras and comparing features and prices, etc.

the main reason for my post was so that other people would realize that this feature is probably available on their digital camera, too, and that they might want to be using it.

i had wanted to use the feature long before i did, but i didn't know what it was called and it's hard to research something when you don't have a name for it!

thanks for looking and for your question.

jill

Mon Oct 29, 09:17:00 AM CDT  
Blogger Lotus_Eskimo said...

Thank you mucho, i did wonder why all of my pictures turned out that way.

Fri Nov 16, 01:29:00 PM CST  

Post a Comment

<< Home