Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: bee  (Read 2034 times)

Jeremy Roussak

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
bee
« on: October 16, 2010, 11:54:21 am »

Just an ordinary honey bee?

Jeremy
Logged

Richowens

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 977
Re: bee
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2010, 12:43:55 pm »

 
 Jeremy,


  No stinger, Syrphid Fly of some sort.

Rich
Logged

wolfnowl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5824
    • M&M's Musings
Re: bee
« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2010, 10:00:30 pm »

Yup, a hoverfly or syrphid of some sort - sometimes called a 'bee imitator', 'cause bees taste bad to birds.  If you want a positive ID, I'd suggest http://bugguide.net as you can post an ID request there.

Mike.
Logged
If your mind is attuned t

Michael West

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1429
Re: bee
« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2010, 10:41:54 pm »

Just an ordinary honey bee?

Jeremy

Although not technically a bee, it's certainly not ordinary.
Logged

AndrewKulin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
    • http://www.andrewkulin.com
Re: bee
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2010, 01:49:51 pm »

I am curious however as to what lens and what technique you used to get that close to this fly.  They tend to be skittish in my experience meaning they'll take off real quick if you move close enough towards them.
Logged
[size=12p

Riaan van Wyk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 812
Re: bee
« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2010, 02:50:03 pm »

Could be Allograpta fuscotibialis (from the Syrphidea family as pointed out by others)- the first pair of chevrons that are seperated on the abdomen and the species's fondness of daisies points to that direction. I could be wrong though.

Lovely photo Jeremy.

Jeremy Roussak

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: bee
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2010, 04:03:32 am »

I am curious however as to what lens and what technique you used to get that close to this fly.  They tend to be skittish in my experience meaning they'll take off real quick if you move close enough towards them.
I used my brand-new Canon 100mm/2.8 L IS macro on a 5d2. This was its first outing and I certainly don't regret the purchase. I bought it after playing with a friend's older, unstabilised version and realising that my formerly steady hands now had quite a tremor. The merits of stabilisation in this lens have been extensively discussed in another thread recently: on this occasion it was irrelevant to the actual exposure (1/1000) but it certainly helped me to frame the shot. I had wondered about getting the 180mm macro but I'm quite sure that I wouldn't be able to use it hand-held!

As to technique, I don't really have one. It was a lovely warm October day in Cheshire and I was with my family visiting Arley Hall, a country manor near where I live which has very beautiful gardens. There were some flowers near a wall; I just waited for a while. The only "tricks" I learned in those few minutes was not to cast shadows, which faze butterflies in particular, to approach slowly and to be a little patient (my wife will happily tell you that "a little" is about as patient as I get). The crop here is about 1/3 of the frame.

Jeremy
Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: bee
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2010, 04:04:12 am »

Could be Allograpta fuscotibialis (from the Syrphidea family as pointed out by others)- the first pair of chevrons that are seperated on the abdomen and the species's fondness of daisies points to that direction. I could be wrong though.

Lovely photo Jeremy.
Thanks, Riaan. As I mention above, it was taken in northern England a couple of weeks ago, if that helps.

Jeremy
Logged

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Re: bee
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2010, 11:50:12 am »

I used my brand-new Canon 100mm/2.8 L IS macro on a 5d2. This was its first outing and I certainly don't regret the purchase. I bought it after playing with a friend's older, unstabilised version and realising that my formerly steady hands now had quite a tremor. The merits of stabilisation in this lens have been extensively discussed in another thread recently: on this occasion it was irrelevant to the actual exposure (1/1000) but it certainly helped me to frame the shot. I had wondered about getting the 180mm macro but I'm quite sure that I wouldn't be able to use it hand-held!
As to technique, I don't really have one. It was a lovely warm October day in Cheshire and I was with my family visiting Arley Hall, a country manor near where I live which has very beautiful gardens. There were some flowers near a wall; I just waited for a while. The only "tricks" I learned in those few minutes was not to cast shadows, which faze butterflies in particular, to approach slowly and to be a little patient (my wife will happily tell you that "a little" is about as patient as I get). The crop here is about 1/3 of the frame.
Jeremy


Welcome to the world of macro :)

The real trick is to frame in such a way as not to have to crop. The other trick is to learn the patience that will get you into such a position, especially when you finally get the @#%$er to sit still, get your perfect angle ... and then the wind blows, or the subject flies-off (take your pick)

Also, it's very hard to get very bright whites and stark yellows like that to come out right sometimes, especially in the mid-day light.

Jack




.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up