Help! Can anyone identify this mystery plant growing in my indoor garden?

[HipsterKitteh]

I never saw any cotyledons on the plant, none have fallen off as much as I can tell, indicative of there not being any which is incredibly odd if not impossible.

[Gunner]

Again..YES! all three(3)x2. Please explain why I NEED...

Now, let me ask if you be so kind as to explain what is digital macro and what is a normal lens in digital? Do I really need 1:1 and if so, why? Are there any other ways the man can get an Identifiable picture without your rules? If so, what are they?

[Dan Espen]

Why don't you just come out and state your views instead of trying to beat mine down?

A normal lens in digital is that same concept as it was in film. It's easy to look up:

In photography and cinematography a normal lens, also called a standard lens, is a lens that reproduces a field of view that generally looks "natural" to a human observer under normal viewing conditions, as compared with lenses with longer or shorter focal lengths which produce an expanded or contracted field of view. Lenses of shorter focal length are called wide-angle lenses, while longer-focal-length lenses are referred to as long-focus lenses[1] (with the most common of that type being the telephoto lenses).

I don't remember mentioning 1:1, I asked for 320x200 of the leaf. The reason I asked for that is the original photo was of a shoot with what looked like one set of true leaves (not the cotyledon). The leaves were small at that. I estimated I'd need at least that much detail to have a chance of identifying the plant.

How else can a plant be identified?

Lots of ways, stem shape, leaf pairing, color, where the OP lives.

[Gunner]

so =A0called =A0a

of =A0view =A0that

lenses, =A0while

Sooth those feathers old son. I just wanted to know if your imperatives were based in fact or speculation. I believe you answered that for me and I thank you for indulging an old dog. This crime scene is getting way OT to investigate further..

Just know there is a danger in attempting to translate old school film =94think=94 to the myriad variables in digital, especially as sacrosanct absolutes. Rather than limiting yourself at the start of a problem with erroneous information, start with a bit of research on how digital does what some consider "macro". I'm betting you will be in a bit of disbelief at first. Run a search using the keywords: "digital macro" and then read up on some of the articles, I suspect you will come to know that digital language , for all it similarities, is not the same as film language. It is just rough translations for us old photogs to relate to a new language as it evolves. Until then it is natural for one to continue to argue for what we think we know.

FYI, 1:1 is another term for "macro".

good day

[Dan Espen]

Okay.

I don't know, macro photography and gardens? Not as OT as a LOT of other stuff.

I hope I didn't present any information I offered as absolutes.

Not really.

Well I did some searches for what that little "flower" setting does and the best I came up with is:

The macro mode button, when pressed, switches the camera into a special close focus mode and many allow the photographer to shoot less than 10cm from the picture subject.

Yes, uniquely not suited for digital. Since film size used to be a good measure of resolution but now we need to worry about the number of pixels, not the area the sensor covers.

Back in the film days, I got as far as extension tubes. Never did buy a ring flash.

I'm mostly using a Canon EOS now and it's interesting how many options are available for digital macro photography but I'm thinking extension tubes again.

I have to admit, I still can't figure out where you are coming from. You started saying you disagree strongly but haven't contradicted anything I've said.

I'm not an expert on macro photography and I've avoided getting very technical on the subject but I still think if you are using a consumer digital camera and the camera has no macro feature or accessories, you're not going to get a good closeup.

[hubops]

< snips >

I suspect that you'd be hard-pressed to find a digital camera, in the last five years or so, that doesn't have a close-focus option ... .. down to four inches or so. .. even the $ 75. point-&-shoot digi-cams. John T.

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to [e-mail]

[Brooklyn1]

Exactly. And 4 inches is way too close for capturing the details of a small plant for purposes of identification, 2-3 feet is plenty close enough... 4 inches is for IDing a mite on a leaf. But regardless, what's important is to accurately frame what it is one wants to ID, not to confuse the camera's microprocessor with extraneous elements, and to maintain steadyness.

[Dan Espen]

I guess all the OP has to do is get a bit closer to the part of the plant someone might be able to identify and use the macro focus button.

Just checked. I have 3 digital cameras. Only the newest one has a macro focus option.

Guess I need to get out more.

[hubops]

< snips >

That's surprising to me. Perhaps the other two don't need a special macro focus function - if they naturally focus to a foot or so (?)

This web site has archived many many digi-cam reviews and specifications - for reference. I just randomly picked a few cheap point-and-shoots - they all had macro ability. John T.

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to [e-mail]

[Brooklyn1]

As I indicated previously macro focus is not used for plant ID, it's more useful for capturing plant anatomy.

[Dan Espen]

Neither is cheap. One was bought early on in the digital conversion, an Olympus D-450. The other is a couple of years older and bought for it's compactness.

Anyone have a good idea what to do with obsolete digital cameras? Besides just toss them? Maybe put them in a time capsule.

[hubops]

< snips >

Our area has drop-off depots for electronics re-cycling. ... a couple years ago, when I tried to donate my trusty

35mm Canon slr system to the local Thrift Shop - they didn't want it .. I had about $ 750. invested originally .. oh well. John T.

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to [e-mail]

[Brooklyn1]

What's an obsolete digital camera... means it's dated but if it still works it still has a use... give it to someone you know who needs a camera or keep it as a spare. I'd give it to a kid in hopes of getting them interested in photography. Or I'd keep it in my car in case of an accident, etc. A digicam takes up very little space, so long as it still works I'd keep it. I kept several old cameras, film cameras too. Many of the early digicams have better lenses than a lot of the modern cameras... cameras are being made chintzier every year, many no longer have viewfinders, I don't consider those a camera worth having. If your old digicam has a viewfinder definitely hold on to it. Film cameras can go obsolete when film is no longer available but I don't see how a digicam can go obsolete.

[Gunner]

Nad, Do you understand why you are wrong now? if not read:

also recommend you root around Ken's site a bit after you read this article: does talk Canon some. another good site is luck

[Dan Espen]

> I also recommend you root around Ken's site a bit after you read this

> good luck

==>Dan

[Dan Espen]

read this site. Good info.

Interesting site.

't find much content but lots of ads.

I need to spend more time with my camera...

[Gunner]

Try to learn about your camera's menus and how best to set up your various menu and their tools , Where and What the Auto Focus (AF) buttons do and how easy it is to change them,( Canon has one on the back) and lastly learn to use your DOF preview button and the lens' ring scale. youtube videos can help.

[go_internet_rothfeld]

I have no idea what kind of plant that is. Maybe you could take it to a plant shop, someone who works there might be able to help. Good Luck!