Thank you Phantome. I appreciate your encouragement, particularly after a weekend of being asked to take 'pretty' photos for ancient relative.

I use a digital SLR. The lenses I use are the same as the ones I used on my 35mm SLR. Since the size of the cell in my digital body and size of the film in the 35mm are slightly different the readings on the lenses are inaccurate, which annoys people when I am asked technical questions, but since I am not someone who records all the information, slapped wrist, this is only a feeble excuse.

For this photo the lens I used was the standard 28 - 90mm, which on my digital body acts probably - sheer guesswork here - as a 50+mm lens. So it certainly was not a macro lens. I did however crop the shot so it is only about 1/2 - 1/3 of its original size both directions.

I had the 'film speed' set to ASA 100, to optimise the quality, and since I wanted a very narrow depth of field I used the fastest shutter speed I could. Again, I did not record the technical detail, but it was taken late morning on a nice sunny day, so your guess is as good as mine. So in answer to your question, a shortish lens and high shutter speed meant I got away without using a tripod.

I would have loved to have tried using a much longer lens but there were practical difficulties such as an oak tree and a laural hedge in the way!

cariad