Tuesday, 1 February 2011

A new toy, part 2

As promised previously, I've been playing some more with my new toy, and have knocked up some new photographs using it ...


While I like that I've been able to snap with it, I still think that I'm well off making the most of it. For instance, most of the photographs I've taken so far are rather pedestrian straight-on shots, which doesn't take best advantage of the microscope's unusual optics and often misses out on more interesting angles that subjects present.

Additionally, there are some hurdles I've yet to work around. First, while the stand that holds the microscope is a little unwieldy, it's still a lot better than trying to get a shot while holding it. Given the scale of the items being photographed, the slightest of slight wobbles makes a steady image impossible. Second, the microscope's internal light source is a little harsh, and can also manifest itself when reflective subjects are photographed. The Windows hotkey above is an example - you can see the individual LEDs reflected around the logo's rim.

So I've still very much got to play about with the scope to see what's possible with it. What I really need to do is install it onto my laptop, so I can use it to take exterior shots - so far I've only snapped off subjects that are within, or can be moved within, range of our home PC.

Changing subject, one of my recent subjects was the flower on one of our orchids. As well as taking a more distant shot, I also went in for a close-up of the flower's interior. When composing a caption for the photograph, and mindful of its depiction of the business end of plant reproduction, I went for "Pornography for plants". Faintly witty, I thought. Anyway, since posting, it's shot up the popularity stakes of my Flickr photographs (40 hits already [*]), and has far outstripped any of its fellow microscope images. It could be because it's such an odd image, and so brightly coloured (no doctoring - honest), but I reckon instead that Flickr's users are searching more (or is it less?) eclectically. Ho-hum.

[*] Hey - that's a lot for me Graham.

No comments: