This summer I’ve shot a lot of flower images, more (probably) than any previous year. I’m aiming for portrait images, but not macro-photo views. Capturing colors with good fidelity has been a challenge, especially for the “Pink Flirt” daylilies. They have colors that are not replicated well by many emulsions. The main part of the flower is a pink-peach color with a dusty rose color near the edges. Ultramax renders them too close to orange and flattens the differences between hues. Lomo 400 does okay for many flowers, but renders them similarly to Ultramax. Portra 160 is acceptable, but not ideal. My Maxxum 7D pushes them close to magenta in places. So far, only Portra 400 captures them well. Unfortunately, the daylilies have a short bloom time, typically lasting only a few weeks, so there is little time for experimentation.
The black and blue salvia is a close second to the daylilies in terms of color capture. They are a deep indigo that is difficult to render, and most emulsions tend to make them appear blue, as does the Sony A100. Oddly, Ultramax does a decent job, as does the Maxxum 7D. Here, Portra 400 also does well.
With coneflowers, the issue is luminance. They seem to reflect light in a way that can easily make them appear faded or grayish in certain areas. In the right light, all the emulsions I’ve tried seem to perform well, and Lomo 400 has been particularly brilliant.
The images presented here are all shot with Portra 400 and the 120mm f/4 macro. All except one were taken with the 13mm extension tube section. To my eye, the 150mm f3.5 lens is a bit sharper across the frame, so I’m trying to determine whether I can get close-up or even macro-ish images with it instead of the 120mm macro lens. These images are to be compared with those taken later with the 150mm f3.5.
Lovely pictures, great detail and depth.
Thanks! Once I’ve figured out extension tubes and 150mm vs 120mm macro, it’s on to studio natural light vs studio flash. It’s been an enjoyable and interesting learning experience.