I know that macro is not "the thing" here. Apparently there are only four likeminded ( from reading the butterfly posts) photographers here. Maybe it should change to four and a half now..It's a scary monster!
Your thoughts on the image please?
I know that macro is not "the thing" here. Apparently there are only four likeminded ( from reading the butterfly posts) photographers here. Maybe it should change to four and a half now..
Your thoughts on the image please?
I know that macro is not "the thing" here. Apparently there are only four likeminded ( from reading the butterfly posts) photographers here. Maybe it should change to four and a half now..The Plane of Sharpest Focus seems to be diagonal - did you use a view camera?
Your thoughts on the image please?
Damn, that looks like me in the morning
... looks like one of the Skeksis to me... ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Crystal
Mike.
The Plane of Sharpest Focus seems to be diagonal - did you use a view camera?
Dick: No- I used a manual lens ( Canon 50mm FD) on a set of the old style tubes on a digital camera.How come the POSF is diagonal if you did not use movements? The bottom left corner is OOF, and the bottom right corner is sharp, and the POSF seem to go from there through the diagonal center-line... this is not supposed to possible without movements or a bent camera!
Incredibly Disgusting,
I'm put off my crunchy peanut butter sandwich now. Hey if you like Macro I was in back home in Holland recently and I came across this Macro site in the dutch magazine, she won an award for her unique technique, you might like it, let me know what you think, I chatted with her recently and she is an elderly lady slightly disabled. her site is: www.miesbrocken.nl
Kind regards (ps, if you need some translating let me know)
Chris
How come the POSF is diagonal if you did not use movements? The bottom left corner is OOF, and the bottom right corner is sharp, and the POSF seem to go from there through the diagonal center-line... this is not supposed to possible without movements or a bent camera!
How come the POSF is diagonal if you did not use movements? The bottom left corner is OOF, and the bottom right corner is sharp, and the POSF seem to go from there through the diagonal center-line... this is not supposed to possible without movements or a bent camera!
I have not a clue why Dick. Unless my homemade adpater for the lens is skew, unlikely though.
I think it is obvious that something is "tilted" ...and it is more likely to be you home-made adapter than the lens or camera - perhaps you could create an adapter with tilt adjustment?
In the first he's reading his (invisible) bible.
In the second he's asking,"Are you here for confession, Jack?"
;)
Hey Riaan, do you think the following images qualifies as "Insect Art?"
Jack, I wouldn't know what "insect art" is even if it slapped me in the face. I think I'm the wrong person to ask:) Your subject seems a bit overexposed to me though, especially the first one's head area. Large insects like these I find difficult to compose so usually I do closer "portraits."
Nice catch! Great view of mutualism.
Mike.
It's fascinating to watch how much care these ants ( all ants in fact) give the Aphids. They are groomed, preened, gently moved from place to place and are defended to the death if threatened.
Ants are, in fact, the world's oldest farmers .... and very nice shot too.
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Samples/elg.jpg)
Eastern Lubber Grasshopper
.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4147/5009706223_683e44059c_z.jpg)
Southeastern Lubber Grasshopper on Swamp Lilly
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4148/5010310508_048c1418b9_z.jpg)
Halloween Pennant cooling off.
Nikon D700 with Sigma 150-500 and Sigma 1.4 teleconverter. Shot handheld at 1/160 sec at 500mm...that optical stabilization stuff is magic.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4147/5009706223_683e44059c_z.jpg)
Southeastern Lubber Grasshopper on Swamp Lilly
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4148/5010310508_048c1418b9_z.jpg)
Halloween Pennant cooling off.
Nikon D700 with Sigma 150-500 and Sigma 1.4 teleconverter. Shot handheld at 1/160 sec at 500mm...that optical stabilization stuff is magic.
So what happened to the DOF in this image Jack? :) :)
Beautiful shots Jack,
What macro setup are you using?
Dave
You guys with your trained dragonfly models are too much! Please keep 'em coming.
Eric
Some great shots, folks. BTW, Jack, did you know that crab spiders get their colouring from the foods they eat?
Mike.
DIET-INDUCED AND MORPHOLOGICAL COLOR CHANGES IN JUVENILE CRAB SPIDERS (ARANEAE, THOMISIDAE)
ABSTRACT. The effect of dietary pigments on abdominal color of juvenile spiders was examined in
the laboratory using the flower-dwelling crab spiders Misumenops asperatus (Hentz 1847), Misumenoides
formosipes (Walckenaer 1837), and Misumena vatia (Clerck 1757) (Thomisidae). Because these species
lack hypodermal chromes, ingested prey pigments may show through the epidermis and affect opisthosomal
coloration. Diet-induced color changes were restricted to the opisthosoma, and all three spider
species responded similarly to dietary pigments.
http://www.americanarachnology.org/JoA_free/JoA_v28_n1/arac_28_01_0056.pdf
Stunning compositions Jack.
I've commented and discussed so much in "user critiques" that it's time for another picture which seems to fit this general theme well. It's a portrait of a moth (undetermined) sitting on the stones around our front door.
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/201002/PEGA7000987220100220/792553152_4wZ9u-O.jpg) (http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/201002/11167719_75vZR#792553152_4wZ9u-A-LB)
Hello Pegelli;
My own opinion is that if that moth would have been on top of a flower or a leaf ... or in some other natural setting ... then it would have had more impact than a photo of a moth on your wall.
Nothing wrong with the focus/subject, etc.; it's the setting which was kinda drab.
Jack
PS: To add an interesting factoid of my own, in the US there are over 765 species of butterfly ... but nearly 11,000 different species of moths. And yet there are hundreds of different books on butterflies, but only two authoritative guides have ever been written on moths (the first in 1903 and the second in 1985).
Comments (background and other) most welcome. Always trying to learn.
Just hatched and busy drying it's wings for take off.
And another woodchuck uhm I mean moth. A Cabbage Tree Emperor
Hi Jack,
Thanks for the feedback and the extra factoïd, always interesting to learn here.
Agree with you on the background, makes it drab for a true nature lover, but I don't mind too much, but I'm probably more attached to my front door vs the average member here :)
Also with these following shots I've been unlucky with the background as you can see.
These were taken on a bicycle ride where photography was not the main objective, so I only had one lens with me, an old Tamron 28-200 superzoom. With a bit of cropping I'm still not unhappy with the results:
Comments (background and other) most welcome. Always trying to learn.
It is almost impossible to get a sharp image of a live insect ( OK, you can cheat and photograph a 4 inch butterfly).
If you use a small enough aperture to get enough DOF, you get diffraction... but that can mean that, as no part of the image is sharp, then it all looks "acceptably sharp"
Sometimes you might be able to get a moth co-planer and use a T/S lens..
Using MF gives you more DOF problems, "macro lenses" that focus to infinity are are not ideal for 1:1.
The Schneider Apo-Digitar Macro 120 is a great lens (are they going to make a T/S DSLR version?), perhaps it would be possible to set it up where wasps walk into the nest?
In a silly moment I wondered if it would be possible to put the Apo-Digitar Macro 120 with a Schneider eShutter on the front of a (lightweight) Sinar F3 on the front of an H4D-60... Use a double e-release with a delay circuit to sync camera and shutter?
The Hasselblad macro lens is not officially compatible with the HTS, but I think it works if you use an extension tube with it.
The Schneider Apo-Digitar Marco does 1:3 to 3:1, which is pretty useful on 645... I also have a set of Zeiss Luminars for 1:1 to 40:1, and I intend to get an eShutter for them.
Interesting observations.
As far as stunning ultra-close-up detail goes, IMO nothing beats the Canon MPE-65 lens, which ranges from 1:1 all the way to 5:1 (5x lifesize). I don't have this lens yet, but will have it in my bag for the next season. The photos I have seen people post of their ultra-close-ups are simply unmatched by conventional lenses, with or without adapters.
Jack
The Schneider Apo-Digitar Marco does 1:3 to 3:1, which is pretty useful on 645... I also have a set of Zeiss Luminars for 1:1 to 40:1, and I intend to get an eShutter for them.
If I ever get a D3X, I could try my Micro-Nikkor 200 ¿Anyone use this lens for digital?
There is a butterfly farm just up the road,,, so I would be able to get specimens to photograph.
They may have a photographer, or it might be possible to become their photographer, or take some pics that they might use... but my local butterfly farm sells specimens for photography.
Regarding the farm, I have a butterfly farm up the road from me as well, but they forbid the sale of any photographic images taken therein, so I would check the legalities of the farm in your area before investing a lot of time/effort in creating a body of work from it. Still, these places can provide rich personal enjoyment and a great place to hone your skills at composition and lighting :)
Jack
Luck you!This is one of my current problems... I feel I should not try to look for work until I am fully equipped and fully up-to-speed to do top-quality work... I need to look for work I can do, or stick to speculative pictorial.
And if you get that macro gear, you may well become their photographer.
Good luck.
Well, as you said in another post (on another thread), part of photography is pleasing the eye of the viewer ... and most people who enjoy photos of natural subjects want to see them in their natural surroundings :)
Thanks for taking the time to commenting again and I agree with all you say, also the other parts of your response not copied here.
Flash (when properly diffused) can indeed be a good solution and I've used it as well.
However when I shot the last 3 dragonflies I also didn't have the flash with me, so it was really me, my old hyperzoom and the midday sun against a stone slab background.
Even though the results ar far from the quality I've seen in this thread (including yours) part of the fun is still to try and do the best you can do within the limits, and when that works (I think at least the results are above average) it also gives me great satisfaction.
You won't get any prizes or make a magazine with it, I still think it's great fun.
Here's a hoverfly (or should we say hooverfly, the way they clean off the pollen) in our garden, a better background and with use of a diffused flash, but still not the nice greens you really want to see in shots like this:
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/201007/PEGA7001186420100721/942422645_RRJkn-O.jpg) (http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/201007/12785638_NiW38#942422645_RRJkn-A-LB)
(for people who want to see the shot data, the exif is completely intact in the posted picture)
@ sailronin, thanks for the compliment!
Here's a hoverfly (or should we say hooverfly, the way they clean off the pollen) in our garden, a better background and with use of a diffused flash, but still not the nice greens you really want to see in shots like this:
Some folks can't stand the black background from shooting with flash at the higher shutter speeds and others prefer it that way as it makes the subject stand out. Background compliments the subject but doesn't make the image I think. Trying to say that this doesn't need "nice greens" for it to be well executed macro work.
Nicely done Brian.+9.
...2 years later...
A few interesting insects (well, the first isn't terribly interesting, but I like the shot) I saw in Kyoto this summer. Comments welcome!
Brian
Nicely done! What the hell is that second one?
Brian, depth of field, focus and composition is spot on in the first picture, well done. I wish that the shadow was softer though.
I'm not familiar with the species, but they're wasps - technically hymenoptera and not insects... ;) If you want to know more specifically, I'd suggest filling out an ID request at http://bugguide.net/
Mike.
At the risk of quibbling with someone who has admittedly far greater knowledge of wildlife than I, Mike, hymenoptera are an order of the class of insects.
Jeremy
I'm not familiar with the species, but they're wasps - technically hymenoptera and not insects... ;) If you want to know more specifically, I'd suggest filling out an ID request at http://bugguide.net/
At the risk of quibbling with someone who has admittedly far greater knowledge of wildlife than I, Mike, hymenoptera are an order of the class of insects.
Jeremy
That is a fascinating shot.
Well seen and well captured Riaan!
Tony Jay
Dusted of the macro stuff yesterday and got lucky with this from the garden.
Dusted of the macro stuff yesterday and got lucky with this from the garden.