Photographing Wildflowers

A couple of days ago somebody asked me why my wildflower pictures look different than most pictures you see. The answer turns out to be that my camera is weird—but mostly in a good way.

Typically, if you want to take a close-up shot, you set your camera to its widest angle setting because that’s where you can focus the closest. Here’s what this looks like:

May 4, 2019 — Lens set at widest focal length (24mm equivalent)

That’s OK. But my camera’s lens is an odd one. Normally, the more you zoom, the farther away you have to be. But on the Sony, the closest focus is at the longest zoom setting. It’s also tack sharp. Here’s what that looks like:

May 4, 2019 — Lens set at longest focal length (600mm equivalent)

The top picture is cropped, and I modified the exposure of both images slightly to make them look more similar. On the normal shot at the top, the angle of view is wide and the depth of field is deep, which means the background is only moderately out of focus. On the bottom shot, taken at 600mm, the angle of view is very narrow and the depth of field is shallow, which means the background is way out of focus. This makes the flower pop out of the background.

On the downside, that shallow depth of field also means that sometimes parts of the flower itself are out of focus. In the example above, the stamens of the flower are sharp but the edges of the petals are a little soft. This may or may not be an effect you like, but you can always use a smaller f-stop if you want a little more depth of field. Like this:

May 4, 2019 — Lens set at longest focal length (600mm equivalent) and stopped down to f/8

In this one, the entire flower is sharp but the background is still pleasantly out of focus. You can decide for yourself which of these you like better, but I generally prefer the middle picture: mostly sharp and with excellent bokeh in the background. But this is only possible with a camera that focuses closely even at its maximum zoom. In 45 years of on-and-off photography, I’d never come across a lens like that until I got the Sony.

POSTSCRIPT: As usual, none of this applies to professional photographers, who would probably use a 100mm macro lens on a top-of-the-line camera with a full-frame sensor to take pictures like this. That will get you a sharp focus, a fairly narrow angle of view, and a shallow depth-of-field. It will also set you back $5,000 or more.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend