# Translucent umbrella for wildflower macros



## chrysoberyl (Jan 23, 2015)

I usually dislike direct sunlight for wildflower macro shots, and it is difficult for me to move the sun or be patient enough for the earth to rotate. So I want an umbrella that diffuses sunlight without changing the color temperature, and is backpackable. Suggestions are always very welcome!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2015)

I use the '5-in-1' reflectors for that, with the cover off they're translucent diffusers. I have 22" and 42" sized, they fold to 1/3 of that. I often use one to diffuse and the other to reflect in for some side lighting. 

The Wimberley Plamp is a useful holder.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jan 23, 2015)

I agree, I don't think you want an umbrella. One of those folding circular diffusers, which are not expensive at all, work great for macro. You could probably get away with a 12 inch is carrying size is a concern. They fold up to about 3-4 inches.


----------



## Famateur (Jan 23, 2015)

+1

I keep a pair of the 40" 5-in-1s handy, one to diffuse, the other to reflect, if necessary (though for me, it's portraits, not macro). Their light weight is a big plus.

If you're hand-holding your shots, you'll want something to mount the diffuser to a stand/tripod (or have a friend hold it). If you're tripod shooting, you can hold the diffuser yourself.


----------



## Zv (Jan 23, 2015)

I have a Lastolite TriGrip Diffuser but never tried it for flowers. It's possible to hold the diffuser in one hand (it has a handle or "grip" and is triangular in shape) and the camera in your right hand. It would be less than ideal though as you'd have limited range and movability. But what it would let you do is get a quick idea of how the flower would look with some test shots before setting up a tripod. 

It also folds up fairly small. A bit expensive though and tbh I haven't really used it much. Seemed like a good idea at the time .... Hmmmm maybe I should try this flower thing.


----------



## chauncey (Jan 23, 2015)

Hey, I've got a great idea...Cut the flower and shoot it inside your house.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jan 23, 2015)

Thanks, all! The '5-in-1' reflectors suggested by neuro and famateur look good.

Chauncey: I actually do pick wildflowers locally and shoot them in my garage. But I have in mind rare species found at the end of long hikes. Picking them would make me less popular than those who chill or freeze insects to get nice macro shots.


----------



## dcm (Jan 23, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> Thanks, all! The '5-in-1' reflectors suggested by neuro and famateur look good.
> 
> Chauncey: I actually do pick wildflowers locally and shoot them in my garage. But I have in mind rare species found at the end of long hikes. Picking them would make me less popular than those who chill or freeze insects to get nice macro shots.



It could also be illegal. It is against the law to pick the wildflowers in a national park. And it wouldn't do much good when I'm above treeline and hours from the trailhead, like a few clumps of purple columbines I encountered along the trail near Chasm Lake in RMNP. They were clearly marked ($500 fine) since picking them would wipe them out in no time because they are annuals that reseed themselves each year in a harsh alpine environment. 

Sunlight at 11,500' about 4 miles from the tailhead is best handled by a small 5-in-1 kit like the FotoDiox 22" or 32" that easily fit in my backpack. The columbines spend time full sunlight or shaded by rock outcroppings so a diffuser and reflector can come in handy. 

One other benefit - they can also be used as a windscreen in a pinch.


----------



## Famateur (Jan 23, 2015)

dcm said:


> One other benefit - they can also be used as a windscreen in a pinch.



Great idea!


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jan 25, 2015)

dcm: Agreed regarding picking wildflowers in national and state parks. I don't. And just to be clear about the local wildflowers, I pick things that are not endangered, like Small White Aster (attached).

Thanks for the FotoDiox reco.


----------



## chauncey (Jan 25, 2015)

Okay, Okay...don't pick the damn things...buy them at your local florist like I do. ;D


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jan 26, 2015)

chauncey said:


> Hey, I've got a great idea...Cut the flower and shoot it inside your house.



Killing something beautiful in nature just to take a picture of it?

Hmmm.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 26, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> Suggestions are always very welcome!



I'd suggest a macro translucent "tent" that covers all sides - the added advantage is that it stops wind so you can focus-stack flowers in place.



AcutancePhotography said:


> chauncey said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, I've got a great idea...Cut the flower and shoot it inside your house.
> ...



With that kind of attitude, try never to discover what photogs do with animals to get pleasant shots without the little critters interfering or moving :-( ...


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 26, 2015)

Zv said:


> I have a Lastolite TriGrip Diffuser but never tried it for flowers. It's possible to hold the diffuser in one hand (it has a handle or "grip" and is triangular in shape) and the camera in your right hand. It would be less than ideal though as you'd have limited range and movability. But what it would let you do is get a quick idea of how the flower would look with some test shots before setting up a tripod.
> 
> It also folds up fairly small. A bit expensive though and tbh I haven't really used it much. Seemed like a good idea at the time .... Hmmmm maybe I should try this flower thing.


That's exactly what I use - I have large two stop version and a smaller difflector version that also serves as a reflector. The bigger version is nice because it blocks a bigger area, but I wish it was the 1 stop version as the light tends to get a little flat with it. Alas, I needed the 2-stop version for mid-day portraits, which is what I bought it for...


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jan 26, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> With that kind of attitude, try never to discover what photogs do with animals to get pleasant shots without the little critters interfering or moving :-( ...



I am never surprised at what depth photographers sink to. Angered and disturbed, yes, but sadly, never surprised.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jan 26, 2015)

Marsu42: A tent. Hmm...this one:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1032648-REG/impact_dls_g_digital_light_shed_36x36x36.html

Would add 3.5 lbs. to my pack. But for flowers close to the road it could be ideal, if it doesn't crush the surrounding vegetation. A good thought.

And BTW, I collect only weeds (like Small White Asters), nothing else. Except some Crane's Fly Orchids that were about to be destroyed in a development. Those I transplanted to my back natural area, where they seem quite happy.

And I never chill or freeze insects.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 26, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> Marsu42: A tent. Hmm...this one:
> 
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1032648-REG/impact_dls_g_digital_light_shed_36x36x36.html
> 
> ...


I think that light tent has a bottom, but I'm sure you could remove or cut it out. If you try it, let us know how it works out.

Also, glad to hear you're a responsible nature photographer  My pet peeve (after those items) is when people shoot flowers in a studio or trained/captive animals and act like they were wild...but that's a subject for a whole other thread...


----------



## chauncey (Jan 26, 2015)

> Killing something beautiful in nature just to take a picture of it


Hmmm...ya can't kill it for a picture...are ya allowed to take a picture of it, then eat it? :


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jan 26, 2015)

chauncey: do you _like_ harsh treatment? But the answer is yes.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 26, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> I think that light tent has a bottom, but I'm sure you could remove or cut it out. If you try it, let us know how it works out.



I vaguely remember seeing versions that are designed for outdoor macro use, it's not that unusual to require soft light for an object on the ground. In any case, the "cut out" will work, an probably removing some sides as well. I imagine this solution is less hassle than to try to mount diffuser-reflectors.



mackguyver said:


> Also, glad to hear you're a responsible nature photographer  My pet peeve (after those items) is when people shoot flowers in a studio or trained/captive animals and act like they were wild...but that's a subject for a whole other thread...



I agree wholeheartedly. In addition to that for my mushroom focus stacks I used to do there was no other choice, you cannot grow them at home or transport them there undamaged - the only solution is to set up some lighting outdoors and get some nice background. Alas, a lot of people don't seem to care if there's a really "wild" background, it looks like in a zoo/tropical garden or if it's shot in a studio :-\


----------



## anthonyd (Jan 27, 2015)

chauncey said:


> > Killing something beautiful in nature just to take a picture of it
> 
> 
> Hmmm...ya can't kill it for a picture...are ya allowed to take a picture of it, then eat it? :


I always photograph my endangered wildflower stuffed turducken before eating it.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 27, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Alas, a lot of people don't seem to care if there's a really "wild" background, it looks like in a zoo/tropical garden or if it's shot in a studio :-\


I have no idea what you're talking about - surely people like National Geographic don't share that opinion:

2012 Nat Geo Photo Contest Winners - Grand Prize Winner
/
Should Photographs Captured in Zoos Be Considered Legitimate ‘Nature’ Pics?


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 27, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Alas, a lot of people don't seem to care if there's a really "wild" background, it looks like in a zoo/tropical garden or if it's shot in a studio :-\
> ...



Thanks for the interesting link!

At least with the free range horses I often shoot there's a huge difference between "zoo" and "wild" (or as wild as horses get in central europe). Next to the "fence in the background" problem, wild animals have behavior patterns you don't find in the zoo, esp. when it comes to interaction *between* animals. You can capture their physical form and basic behavior, but what an animal species defines is imho mostly lost in close captivity. 

However, the NatGeo award shows that the difference is too elusive to make it into mainstream accepted knowledge. I suspect that's because there are so many amateur zoo photogs and visotors around that a big media corporation is too afraid to tackle the issue. Personally, I disagree completely with the stance quoted in the article:



> As it happens, while I know some photographers feel that pictures of captive animals are inferior to photos captured of animals in the wild, as wonderful as it is to see animals in their natural habitat, I’ve always thought this is a ridiculous way to think. A Tiger, for example, in captivity is every bit as awesome, amazing, and gorgeous as a Tiger in the wild


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 27, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...


I agree completely, but I'm sure we're in the minority. I can tell you that many of the most popular photos in photo contests and places like 500px and Flickr were shot with captive animals or those in game parks, like Cabárceno Wildlife Park in Spain.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 2, 2015)

Anatomy is the same, behavior is not. Personally I prefer to see behavioral photos or photos indicating adaptation to the environment (where's Waldo - hint, looks like a dead leaf). And part of my motivation is to show what you can see if you look closely in your local parks. Publicist for the local birds, fungi, insects, etc.


----------



## aclarkimages (Jun 15, 2017)

mackguyver said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I have a Lastolite TriGrip Diffuser but never tried it for flowers. It's possible to hold the diffuser in one hand (it has a handle or "grip" and is triangular in shape) and the camera in your right hand. It would be less than ideal though as you'd have limited range and movability. But what it would let you do is get a quick idea of how the flower would look with some test shots before setting up a tripod.
> ...




I use a few of the small pocketboxes from Westcott that velcro with a strap to the head of flashes. Definitely work will for diffusing light and if you want more you can use the diffusion cap on the flash in addition to the box.


----------

