Colours of the RainBow

At the photo processer I asked about some color film? He didn't have what I was looking for so I ended up substituting film . . . same rating just different emulsion . . . told him "I wanted to shoot some rainbows." He asked 'did I expect a lot of rain?'
Actually I shot it digitally anyway . . .

Funny thing is that this interest in rainbows came out of a passing thought as I was working on this photograph I had taken. I wondered if I could photograph the scene with a rainbow . . . thing is that it more exact to ask if a waterfall exist in miniature, would a rainbow also exist?
After all one of the best (highest on the desire to shoot) photographs, I had seen was a shot of a friend with background setting of some falls & a rainbow . . . But I had noted in southern areas used pump-trucks to irrigate the fields produced their own rainbows.

Having had some experiences of observing rainbows & my own understanding of characteristics of light, I decided to get an official type (scientific) explanation of the phenomena.
So I ran a search . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow
I was more than a little surprised by official versions like these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=264269336

quote:

---

Scientific explanation:
The light is first refracted as it enters the surface of the raindrop, reflected off the back of the drop, and again refracted as it leaves the drop. The overall effect is that the incoming light is reflected back over a wide range of angles, with the most intense light at an angle of 40°–42°. The angle is independent of the size of the drop, but does depend on its refractive index. Seawater has a higher refractive index than rain water, so the radius of a 'rainbow' in sea spray is smaller than a true rainbow.

---

http://eo.ucar.edu/rainbows/

quote:

---

What makes the bow?
A question like this calls for a proper physical answer. We will discuss the formation of a rainbow by raindrops. It is a problem in optics that was first clearly discussed by Rene Descartes in 1637. An interesting historical account of this is to be found in Carl Boyer's book, The Rainbow From Myth to Mathematics. Descartes simplified the study of the rainbow by reducing it to a study of one water droplet and how it interacts with light falling upon it. . . .This quotation illustrates how the shape of the rainbow is explained. To simplify the analysis, consider the path of a ray of monochromatic light through a single spherical raindrop. Imagine how light is refracted as it enters the raindrop, then how it is reflected by the internal, curved, mirror-like surface of the raindrop, and finally how it is refracted as it emerges from the drop. If we then apply the results for a single raindrop to a whole collection of raindrops in the sky, we can visualize the shape of the bow.

---

Now, the latter seemed to provide better (accurate) information but it just didn't ring true to me, perhaps I just didn't understand what was stated? Like there seems to be a connection with the direction of rain drops as related by the direction of the bow => direction of the rain?
But as I look at the first photo, I note that the lower 2 inserted photos, the direction of the spray head is about opposite yet I don't really note there being any difference in the direction of the bow formed?

Oh, & about that roll of color (chrome)?

Very pretty photography.

Ah. thank you. Both shots are of an orchid flower I had picked up downtown and shot available light on daylight balanced chrome.
The upper shot uses the cultured marble top as a backdrop, while the lower has a black cloth over the marble. Both are exposed by a tungsten light source (used a 60 watt lamp [front/side lite] & the ambient light of the tungsten bulbs of the tree. Neither was color corrected because I wanted the red/yellow shift aspect of the light source [color temperature].

Good to get an insider view of photography. I always wondered about those really amazing pictures you see, usually of nature, that seem to be more colorful and more alive than the actual world itself.

So does this mean that its the camera you use, or the type of film, or the lighting, or all of the above, that creates those really vivid, larger than life images Im talking about?

You inspired me to do a little flower photography myself.

This is the tree just outside my front door.

I only have a very old second hand digital camera (the date is broken on it.) so I cannot get much in the way of effects. The picture doesn't do the vividness and beauty of the flowers themselves any justice.

quote:

---

So does this mean that its the camera you use, or the type of film, or the lighting, or all of the above, that creates those really vivid, larger than life images I'm talking about?

---

This was photographed with a Nikon N9s SLR (Single Lens Reflex), a 35mm film with a 70 mm - 300 mm macro zoom. (macro being a close up with an image size (image on the film) approximately half the actual size. Example: Previously shooting a Kapok tree enticed me toward a 1:1 ratio macro of it's flower but to my dismay the flower's were larger (6" dia.) than the 4"x5" film format I was shooting.
But this (your photo) isn't bad at all, I like the (blown out) high lights of the sun shining through the leaves. As you are shooting digitally, film generally fall into two categories . . . positive (chrome) & negative (Also instant print => Polaroid) and you have the option of color or B&W. The orchid flower are on (chrome) slide film produces a positive image, Negative film produces a negative image such as this scan of a print from the negative.

These are some old photos that i had taken. I had gone to a local store that was doing a promo featuring Miss America who would preside over a "Future Miss America" Pageant. I choose to shoot a color negative film that was reputed to do well with neon lights . . .

Neon light is notoriously poor light for photography.
Just as tungsten light yellow-red tone, neon produces a green tone. but to add injury to insult, neon is an inert gas of low mass & therefore emits photons in a very limited spectrum (sharply define wavelengths so they add phosphors to broaden the spectrum). I was rather surprised just how well the Realla had dealt with the lighting aspect as I generally shoot with available or ambient light. I was finding it hard as none of the photos seemed to give good examples of how this effects the print?

Then I started to note some things about the lighting? In this photo note the funny reflection or appearance in the background.

Note the multiple shadows . . . the darker shadow of the legs is probably specular light from an electronic flash while the faint shadow of the flowers is probably ambient but as it is side lighting, it could be a photo flood as the presence of movie camera would tend use? the effect of the neon lighting was lost in the ambient light..

Oh, as for the neon effect . . . note that this is available light outdoors but if you look at the ceiling lights inside you may note that greenish tinge showing through . . . funny thing the electronic flash is a xenon tube.
A much larger => massive inert element producing a pulse of white light.

cturtle, don't take this the wrong way but all of your pictures here seem a bit out of focus. Let me ask you this: Do you use one hand or two when you take pictures? Do you have any pictures you could upload where you used a tripod?