Yellowjacket Mimic Fly - Spilomyia Longicornis
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
- crotermund
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 1:58 pm
- Contact:
Yellowjacket Mimic Fly - Spilomyia Longicornis
I always liked the eyes on this particular fly. The pictures are very similar, but any input regarding which one might be more desirable is appreciated.
He waved to me before taking off...
He waved to me before taking off...
Craig Rotermund
Canon 30D
Sigma 150mm
Canon 30D
Sigma 150mm
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
It's pic #1 for my tastes.
The crop is just a bit tighter (bigger subject), I prefer the light fly against the darker background, it seems like there are fewer distracting flower elements, and (dang, it's the day for confusion!) my brain is not dragged away trying to figure out what that thing sticking out front is.
On the other hand, it would be nice to have such a crisp in-focus hind leg as in pic #2. I don't suppose...nah, that would be cheating...unless, of course, you told us it was a manual stack...
--Rik
The crop is just a bit tighter (bigger subject), I prefer the light fly against the darker background, it seems like there are fewer distracting flower elements, and (dang, it's the day for confusion!) my brain is not dragged away trying to figure out what that thing sticking out front is.
On the other hand, it would be nice to have such a crisp in-focus hind leg as in pic #2. I don't suppose...nah, that would be cheating...unless, of course, you told us it was a manual stack...
--Rik
- Mike B in OKlahoma
- Posts: 1048
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:32 pm
- Location: Oklahoma City
I agree that the fly looks better against a dark background.
For some reason, the red spot on the eye seems more prominent on #2. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not (probably is).
For some reason, the red spot on the eye seems more prominent on #2. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not (probably is).
Mike Broderick
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Constructive critiques of my pictures, and reposts in this forum for purposes of critique are welcome
"I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul....My mandate includes weird bugs."
--Calvin
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Constructive critiques of my pictures, and reposts in this forum for purposes of critique are welcome
"I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul....My mandate includes weird bugs."
--Calvin
- Bruce Williams
- Posts: 1120
- Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:41 pm
- Location: Northamptonshire, England
- Contact:
Yes, my preference is pic1 as well. The photo is (IMO) all about the insect's extraordinary eyes - and the eye has greater impact in pic1 (for the reasons already mentioned).
Rik raises an interesting point though:
As implied in Rik's posting, It would seem to me to be similar in principle to the methods of stacking and stitching that many of us routinely employ. Whilst this sort of information is clearly helpful to the "viewer" from a technical point of view, is there an obligation on the postee to provide this sort of information?
How about taking this question that bit further: What would be the view on a posting of a completely plausable composite with say, the head, leg and abdomen all taken from different individuals of the same species?
Both excellent pics Craig
Bruce
Rik raises an interesting point though:
What is the Forum's view about merging 2 (or possibly more) images of the same subject, taken at the same time, in order to get the best possible composite? In this example, replacing the OOF back leg in pic1 with the sharper leg from pic2 (would probably need to be slightly resized, rotated and level adjusted)?On the other hand, it would be nice to have such a crisp in-focus hind leg as in pic #2. I don't suppose...nah, that would be cheating...unless, of course, you told us it was a manual stack...
As implied in Rik's posting, It would seem to me to be similar in principle to the methods of stacking and stitching that many of us routinely employ. Whilst this sort of information is clearly helpful to the "viewer" from a technical point of view, is there an obligation on the postee to provide this sort of information?
How about taking this question that bit further: What would be the view on a posting of a completely plausable composite with say, the head, leg and abdomen all taken from different individuals of the same species?
Both excellent pics Craig
Bruce
- crotermund
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 1:58 pm
- Contact:
Thanks a lot for the feedback everybody. I love it when the talk turns a bit philosophical. I have scanned the site for any "rules" regarding photo manipulation and didn't see any specifically. I didn't even think about a little leg swap until Rik mentioned it and I don't think it would be too difficult a procedure.
Anyway, the whole question of whether or not something is "cheating" is a curious one. In looking at a photo as an end product or work of art, it is difficult to see a difference between using a stacking program or doing it manually to fix something like the oof leg. Everybody uses a different combination of tools to achieve the end result -- a photo to share. Cropping, lighting adjustments, editing out an unwanted distraction, sharpening, etc. all seem like "acceptable" alterations, but where do you draw the line?
I'm merely rambling, of course, as I find the topic quite interesting. Bruce asked
Personally, Bruce, I don't think one should be obligated to include alteration information in every post, but I do believe that a person should be obligated to answer honestly if someone asks about a post. I think the alteration information is technically very useful at times and like to see it, but other times I think it might take some of the magic out of the end result. Again, I am rambling.
Regarding your 2nd question Bruce:
It's always interesting guys. Anybody else have some thoughts to share on this topic? I hope I didn't run it into the ground.
Anyway, the whole question of whether or not something is "cheating" is a curious one. In looking at a photo as an end product or work of art, it is difficult to see a difference between using a stacking program or doing it manually to fix something like the oof leg. Everybody uses a different combination of tools to achieve the end result -- a photo to share. Cropping, lighting adjustments, editing out an unwanted distraction, sharpening, etc. all seem like "acceptable" alterations, but where do you draw the line?
I'm merely rambling, of course, as I find the topic quite interesting. Bruce asked
Whilst this sort of information is clearly helpful to the "viewer" from a technical point of view, is there an obligation on the postee to provide this sort of information?
Personally, Bruce, I don't think one should be obligated to include alteration information in every post, but I do believe that a person should be obligated to answer honestly if someone asks about a post. I think the alteration information is technically very useful at times and like to see it, but other times I think it might take some of the magic out of the end result. Again, I am rambling.
Regarding your 2nd question Bruce:
This seems like it might be taking the edits too far , but it is hard to know where exactly to draw the line w/o any clear guidelines.How about taking this question that bit further: What would be the view on a posting of a completely plausable composite with say, the head, leg and abdomen all taken from different individuals of the same species?
It's always interesting guys. Anybody else have some thoughts to share on this topic? I hope I didn't run it into the ground.
Craig Rotermund
Canon 30D
Sigma 150mm
Canon 30D
Sigma 150mm
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Philosophy, I love it too!crotermund wrote:I love it when the talk turns a bit philosophical.
Actually when I wrote "nah, that would be cheating", I did not intend to be talking about policy! It was just supposed to be a bit quirky and hopefully amusing way to make a suggestion. Oops!
Well, here's what we have to work with:...it is hard to know where exactly to draw the line w/o any clear guidelines...
Now I guess we could haggle over what "considerable amount" and "reality" mean, but it's a lot easier to list examples and say "This seems OK but that doesn't."The Guidelines wrote:Digital enhancement of an image is allowed for contrast control, color corrections, and crop/sizing. Any digital enhancements that alter the "naturalness" of the subject must be declared in the image post. Any image that has had digital enhancements that deviate a considerable amount beyond reality should be so noted in the post.
As it happens, I agree completely with your examples. Increasing DOF by combining pictures of the same bug in slightly different poses seems OK. In fact, if you peruse the forum's articles, you'll be led to one by Mark Plonsky that focuses on how to do just that. But combining pictures of different bugs seems like going too far.
If you press me for a reason, I'll probably mutter something about "risk of putting together stuff that really doesn't belong". It's common practice for scientific illustrators to use bits and pieces of various specimens as models for their work, but those people are either subject-matter experts themselves or work with people who are. So they're not likely to mess up.
For most of us, it's just way too easy to create chimeras by accident -- the body of an X, the wing of a Y. Years ago, I watched a museum curator have great fun rearranging a collection of butterflies. "No, no, these don't go together at all. Look, see this third dot from the tail -- in an X it's sort of triangular and silvery, but in a Y it's more crescent shaped and plain white." (Uh, yeah, that was my collection. Speyeria are a tough group.)
This is just me speaking, not Policy. But does that help?
--Rik
Well these are spectacular Craig. Me being me would have to go for the second shot because I know whats its doing and I love behaviour shots more than anything.
Would I cheat to get what I wanted, you bet I would..........and do. Always disclosed though. How far would I go, probably a lot further than anyone here.
All the best Craig, excellent work
Danny.
Would I cheat to get what I wanted, you bet I would..........and do. Always disclosed though. How far would I go, probably a lot further than anyone here.
All the best Craig, excellent work
Danny.
Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.
- crotermund
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 1:58 pm
- Contact:
Thanks a lot Rik & Danny, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Rik, I know you were just kidding around when you said, "nah, that would be cheating", but since Bruce opened that "can of worms" I couldn't let the topic slide. Your thoughts and the guidelines do help. Thanks again.
Craig Rotermund
Canon 30D
Sigma 150mm
Canon 30D
Sigma 150mm
- twebster
- Posts: 442
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:02 am
- Location: Phoenix "Valley of the Sun", Arizona, USA
My preference is with image #2, also. I like the background better and image #1, IMHO, has too many tonal mergers between the body segments, wing, and the background.
As regards digital composites, I have nothing against them at all. I do, however, feel that digital composites should be revealed when the image is posted. I do not feel that it is enough to wait for someone to ask if it a digitally composited image. Disclosure is always the best option. That doesn't mean you have to disclose every digital improvement to an image. Cloning out dust spots, density/color/contrast manipulations are all holdovers from common "wet" darkroom manipulations. Digital compositing, however, is another issue and should be disclosed at the time the image is posted.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it
As regards digital composites, I have nothing against them at all. I do, however, feel that digital composites should be revealed when the image is posted. I do not feel that it is enough to wait for someone to ask if it a digitally composited image. Disclosure is always the best option. That doesn't mean you have to disclose every digital improvement to an image. Cloning out dust spots, density/color/contrast manipulations are all holdovers from common "wet" darkroom manipulations. Digital compositing, however, is another issue and should be disclosed at the time the image is posted.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it
Tom Webster
Phoenix "The Valley of the Sun", Arizona, USA
The worst day photographing dragonflies is better than the best day working!
Phoenix "The Valley of the Sun", Arizona, USA
The worst day photographing dragonflies is better than the best day working!
I keep coming back to these Craig and not only for the comments here which are interesting BTW. I just find these two particular shots amazing. The subject is to die for and your technique is excellent !!!. Man, I wish these were mine
Danny.
Danny.
Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.