Thanks, Anne. Yes, here's the original:

I think that your uncropped photo is more interesting than your cropped ... it looks like you unconsciously used the Rule of Thirds when you took it. You also have to consider what the photo will be used for .. For the plant database, your cropped photo is more appropriate than the uncropped because you're only interested in what the plant looks like. There is a tradeoff though. When you take a picture or crop a picture with nothing else in it, you lose the ability to compare the subject to something familiar so it's very difficult know what size the plant/bloom actually is.

Here is a good example .. this is a Rosary Vine flower and the flower is about an inch long! But you can't tell from looking at the picture.

You guessed it. I did crop it for the database.

I did like the original for the colors of the surrounding dahlias.

I do understand your photo and the inability to guess at the size. I've seen similar photos in garden catalogs that show the bloom but when it blooms in the garden it's difficult to even notice it among the other plants.

Thanks for your help.

Pirl and Xeramtheum (any everyone else who posts on the new photograph forum)
- may I ask each of you to tell us about your cameras? What brand, style, etc.

You're welcome! That's what we are all here for at ATP - exchange of information for learning.

I wonder if we should start a new thread for each brand of camera?

And maybe separate threads for explanations/meanings of terms. Such as ISO?

That's probably a good idea, Lynn. Otherwise useful info gets buried and people don't want to have to hunt around for it.

There are many brands and types of cameras; I have no problem is someone starts a zillion threads here.

What I was asking is to know which camera was used to take any given photo.

For example, when Xeramtheum posts this photo:

It would be good to know which camera was used.

On most/many photography sites each photographer adds some amount of information beneath the photo; some include things like camera make and model, film or digital, time of day/weather conditions/lighting, etc. and if the camera uses different lenses and filters, which were used for the photo.

Here is an example from a random photography sharing site:

http://www.photographysites.co...

The (minimal) information provided was:

Uploaded Jun 26 2014 05:48 AM
Camera NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D80
Taken 2014:05:08 01:33:55
Views 607
CategoryFlowers
Copyright ©Samantha Ann Miller

That would be helpful in the banner photos especially, however it might be a bit cumbersome for the postings on the threads. It could not be auto parsed from the photo meta data as that is often removed when a picture is cropped or otherwise manipulated.

The same might be true of database photos.
We can always ask the submitter if it would be helpful to us, I guess.

Here is an example:
This was taken with a Nikon Coolpix S6100 (most everything is pre-set on this camera)
August 8, 2014 at 7:47 am - morning sun shining on the plant.
f/3.7
exposure 1/100 sec.
ISO-80
focal length 5 mm
No flash used
No macro used



Then I edited/cropped to get this:

Personally that's just way too much information that really isn't useful for the average user.

It also implies the credit should go to the camera when it's really the photographer who should get the credit.

If you had a wonderful meal at a restaurant would you ask the chef what kind of pots and pans he had?

For what it may be worth, I agree... Maybe there needs to be an "Advanced Camera Users" thread where those stats would in fact be meaningful to people? We may get there, but we've got a long ways to go... MR

I must have misunderstood the purpose of this forum, thinking it was to help all of us to take better pictures of our plants/flowers.
I will gracefully bow out. Let the chit-chat continue.

I went out again this afternoon to take more photos. It's more fun when I can switch to macro as I please. Thanks for all the help, Anne.

greene said:I must have misunderstood the purpose of this forum, thinking it was to help all of us to take better pictures of our plants/flowers.
I will gracefully bow out. Let the chit-chat continue.

Greene, I agree with you that the forum is to help all of us take better pictures -- but we're all at different levels! Won't it work to have different threads for different classes, as it were?

I would love to be able to make sense of the stats that rightfully are important for you, but I'm just not there yet. It isn't fair to you to keep you at our level, but we'll never get to yours if we try to begin there! I hope we haven't offended -- I think this photography forum is just beginning and will become very important to ATP as we all find out where we need to begin -- as well as having people like you show us how far we can go! MR

Well said!!! We need all the help we can get. Perhaps someday I will understand all those symbols and settings for now we move forth slowly.

There is no reason we cannot have an Advanced thread in which those who have advanced knowledge can share.

What I have always loved about ATP is the differing levels of expertise and the willingness of others to help the newbies move from basics to more expert.

I think greene's suggestion is a good one and if you want to include the extra technical information about photos in this forum, by all means, please do so. For those who don't care about that info, they can ignore it easily enough.

shutter speed, f/stop and ISO (called ASA when I first started) where the first things that I learned when I started in photography almost 40 years ago. I learned about these long before I started worrying about lighting and composition, close-ups etc..