Garry has a lot of trouble getting very close to things, then shooting them. With a camera.

I’m pretty sure this has something to do with more than 40 years in film and videotape where getting too close was unflattering and unless the camera had the right lens, blurry.

Yesterday, we spent a little time working on getting close to flowers and shooting tight with a macro lens. He got the message, but I’m not sure he is quite ready for that level of intimacy with anything in a lens.

While teaching him how to use the macro feature on the 12-50 mm Olympus lens, I got some pictures of Garry, too.


  1. Macro is not so easy. I should take more photos with my macro lens. It is very heavy and I prefer to use it with my Nikon D7000 which is also a heavy camera. I find it difficult to focus on the part I want, when everything else gets blurry and it all has to be done manual. Using automatic is no help with my camera. Although that is what photography is all about I suppose.


    1. Macro lenses are finicky. They sort of ‘do their own thing’ while we fiddle around. Just when you think you’ve got a great shot, in the nano-second between seeing it and pressing the shutter, it goes all blurry. I have one “full”macro lens which is super finicky, but lets you almost climb inside the flower … and another macro function on a telephoto lens which gets you very close, though not quite that tight. But both are sometimes infuriating lenses to use. Sometimes, they simply will NOT focus on what you want to focus on and insist on focusing on their “longer” view. Apparently this is how they work.

      After a couple of years of grappling with macro lenses, I can 50% of the time get what I’m trying to get. The rest of the time, it’s blur city. So I understand the frustration. Someday, they will make a macro lens that just does macro and doesn’t also do a longer length. Maybe that way it’ll stay focused on the tight shot and stop shifting to the long one!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You have hit the nail on the head which has reassured me, because I though I was doing something wrong. Too much depth of focus is not good, you have a great blue and perhaps something detailed in the middle. I have also discovered that the zoom lens is also quite good for a macro.


        1. I do a lot of “almost” macros with non-macro lenses. They don’t let me get AS close, but they let me get close enough. I can also get VERY close using a long telephoto from a distance, which isn’t what they were meant to do, but they do it surprisingly well.

          Macros get into moods, you know? Sometimes, they’ll take the shot and it’s breathtaking. The next time, all you get is blur in the foreground, but the background is GREAT which would be fine, but you aren’t using a macro to get better backgrounds.

          Liked by 1 person

              1. One experimental Macro shot took 3 tries before I got something close to what I wanted. Less finicky is a macro attachment lens that fits on my kit 14-42mm and does a pretty decent job with way less fiddling around.., and no personality of its own.


    1. Thanks. I have some with Garry’s face, but he really hates the pictures. Doesn’t like his neck. Do any of us like our neck? It was fun getting the shots and luckily, he has beautiful, graceful hands. Now if ONLY I could get both his hands and face and not have him scowl at me. Ah well. The perils of portraiture!


Talk to me!

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.