Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Insects  (Read 17776 times)
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #80 on: October 01, 2010, 10:05:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Luck you!

And if you get that macro gear, you may well become their photographer.

Good luck.
Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #81 on: October 01, 2010, 10:13:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Luck you!

And if you get that macro gear, you may well become their photographer.

Good luck.
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.

Before I got the MFD, my wife asked me why I didn't try to sell work I could do with what I had, but if potential customers had seen amateur rubbish taken with amateur rubbish, they would not want to talk to be again.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
sailronin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 240



WWW
« Reply #82 on: October 01, 2010, 12:40:10 PM »
ReplyReply

John, Riaan, Pegelli,
Beautiful work, great bugs!

Dave
Logged

Thank you for looking, comments and critiques are always welcome.
Dave

http://sailronin.smugmug.com
pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 580



WWW
« Reply #83 on: October 01, 2010, 01:10:13 PM »
ReplyReply


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 Smiley


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:


(for people who want to see the shot data, the exif is completely intact in the posted picture)
  

@ sailronin, thanks for the compliment!
Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #84 on: October 01, 2010, 05:36:53 PM »
ReplyReply

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.

My pleasure, and agreed.




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.

Oh, I understand that those shots were just fun shots, as I have seen some exceptional photos of yours in the past.

I too love being out there getting what I can. I just got back from a road cruise and took about 200 photos of Florida wildflowers and a few butterflies ... of which maybe 6 are keepers ... and where many of the discards had that "sickly yellow/green" cast to them also because I too tried the natural light (which at the time was likewise very harsh).




You won't get any prizes or make a magazine with it, I still think it's great fun.

Well, I am hoping mine eventually do make it to the magazines ... and I have seen many pictorial "coffee table" naturalist books with some incredible macrophotography in them.

My goal is to hold myself to these high standards, and to follow this kind of scrutiny in my evaluation, in the hope that when I get there with my own skills I can try my hand at it too. I am working on a Florida Wildflower book right not (and a few other projects), so time will tell Smiley




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:

(for people who want to see the shot data, the exif is completely intact in the posted picture)
@ sailronin, thanks for the compliment!

I really like this image Pegelli Smiley

The colors are much more natural, and the composition and the background all work in harmony together.

Well done,

Jack





.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 05:39:09 PM by John Koerner » Logged
Riaan van Wyk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 675



« Reply #85 on: October 03, 2010, 02:21:48 PM »
ReplyReply


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:


Your flash technique seems to work well sir. 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.       
Logged
pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 580



WWW
« Reply #86 on: October 04, 2010, 06:02:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Riaan and Jack, appreciate your comments.
Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #87 on: October 04, 2010, 09:08:56 AM »
ReplyReply

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.      


I agree. I don't think the background has to be green at all. However, I do think the background should complement (or at least not detract from) the image.

In Pegelli's image above, the background neither makes the shot nor breaks the shot---it simply "goes" with the shot. The background is easy on the eyes and it fully-allows his subject to stand out and be admired.

In studying the work of some really great macrophotographers, and in reading many of their thoughts on the subject, the consensus is pretty much that the background is as important to "get right" as is the shot itself for an overall effect. If the background is too noisy, too cluttered, and/or competes or clashes with the subject in any way, then the image is considered flawed. If the background blends with the subject, this is considered good ... and if the background actually enhances the subject, then so much the better.

We've all heard Ansel Adams' famous quote, "There is nothing worse than a brilliant image of a fuzzy concept," and (when applied to macrophotography) I suppose this quote could be re-formulated to say, "There is nothing worse than an ultra-sharp subject surrounded by an overall unsavory background," because in essence the overall "concept" is likewise lost or ruined. For example, I have hundreds of moth images, taken with razor-sharp focus, that are next-to-useless because they were taken on the screen of my back door. The sole function these images serve is for species identification, but as something pleasing to look at artistically, these images just don't cut it. The background of "my screen door" is just not what anyone wants to see, myself included.

However, had I taken the same-quality image, of the same species of moth, but where the background was a moss-covered log with perfect lighting ... then the whole presentation becomes a home run Smiley

Same subject, same-quality focusing and lighting, just a vastly-different quality in the background. Therefore, we as macrophotographers have to look at the background as being just as vital to the overall success of our images as is the subject itself.

Jack




.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2010, 09:13:50 AM by John Koerner » Logged
Riaan van Wyk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 675



« Reply #88 on: October 10, 2010, 12:19:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Cotton-stainer assassin.
Logged
bdosserman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


« Reply #89 on: October 11, 2012, 12:23:04 AM »
ReplyReply

...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
Logged
Riaan van Wyk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 675



« Reply #90 on: October 11, 2012, 02:04:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Nicely done Brian.
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7443



WWW
« Reply #91 on: October 11, 2012, 06:07:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Nicely done Brian.
+9.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
bdosserman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


« Reply #92 on: October 30, 2012, 10:16:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Here's another one, from my backyard last summer.

Brian
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3669



« Reply #93 on: November 01, 2012, 03:15:12 PM »
ReplyReply

...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?

Jeremy
Logged
bdosserman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


« Reply #94 on: November 01, 2012, 03:40:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Nicely done! What the hell is that second one?

Thanks! I have no clue what it is, but I love how it looks like it's wearing shades.

Brian
Logged
Riaan van Wyk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 675



« Reply #95 on: November 02, 2012, 12:48:15 PM »
ReplyReply

It's from the Asildae family, a "robber fly." They are predators of other insects, usually catching them in flight.
Logged
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5560



WWW
« Reply #96 on: November 02, 2012, 11:02:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Riaan got there first.  It's definitely a robber fly, hiding from the prey by wearing sunglasses.   Wink

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
bdosserman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


« Reply #97 on: November 03, 2012, 09:44:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Mike and Riaan -- now I know!

Brian
Logged
bdosserman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


« Reply #98 on: November 07, 2012, 09:03:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Here are a couple more from the other day (yes, I know the second isn't technically an insect). What do you think?

Brian
Logged
Riaan van Wyk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 675



« Reply #99 on: November 08, 2012, 11:43:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Brian, depth of field, focus and composition is spot on in the first picture, well done. I wish that the shadow was softer though.

Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad