Barely have time to do these since they take so much time. 4 hours of work just for these two photos.
I found this beauty when I was cleaning lingonberries I picked earlier.
4x with 4x microscope lens, sony A77 and flash diffused through paper cup. Stack of 89 photos with 3 µm steps.
Spider by Rasmus Rissanen, on Flickr
9x microscope lens, sony A77 and flash diffused through a pingis ball. Stack of 50 photos with 1,5 µm steps
Eyes of the spider by Rasmus Rissanen, on Flickr
Jumping spider
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Great pictures.
I like the composition, light and angle of view in the first.
The second is just unbelievable.
Troels
I like the composition, light and angle of view in the first.
The second is just unbelievable.
Troels
Troels Holm, biologist (retired), environmentalist, amateur photographer.
Visit my Flickr albums
Visit my Flickr albums
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23606
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
These are lovely images!
I have to say, though, I'm starting to twitch a little bit at the misleading anthropomorphism caused by reflections of the lens. For me the impression is overwhelming that the spider is looking straight into the camera, and of course it's doing no such thing. What appears to be the pupil of the spider's eye is actually the pupil of the lens, reflected by the spherical surface of the eye.
I have only a couple of ideas what to do about this issue, basically just different ways of making sure that the lens is either kept in the dark (not illuminated) or covered with black. There is some discussion and examples at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=13636.
--Rik
I have to say, though, I'm starting to twitch a little bit at the misleading anthropomorphism caused by reflections of the lens. For me the impression is overwhelming that the spider is looking straight into the camera, and of course it's doing no such thing. What appears to be the pupil of the spider's eye is actually the pupil of the lens, reflected by the spherical surface of the eye.
I have only a couple of ideas what to do about this issue, basically just different ways of making sure that the lens is either kept in the dark (not illuminated) or covered with black. There is some discussion and examples at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=13636.
--Rik
Thanks for your feedback. Personally I like the intimate feeling of latter photo. But if it feels like that in every image it will start to feel dull.rjlittlefield wrote:These are lovely images!
I have to say, though, I'm starting to twitch a little bit at the misleading anthropomorphism caused by reflections of the lens. For me the impression is overwhelming that the spider is looking straight into the camera, and of course it's doing no such thing. What appears to be the pupil of the spider's eye is actually the pupil of the lens, reflected by the spherical surface of the eye.
I have only a couple of ideas what to do about this issue, basically just different ways of making sure that the lens is either kept in the dark (not illuminated) or covered with black. There is some discussion and examples at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=13636.
--Rik
Thanks for that link, interesting topic. I wonder if you could abuse it to make it look like spider is looking at something else by having a "pupil" lit somewhere else..