wolf spider

Images of undisturbed subjects in their natural environment. All subject types.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

nanometer
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2016 10:14 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ

wolf spider

Post by nanometer »

Taken at night with flash. Had to use 400mm telephoto as it wouldn't let me get close before heading down the hole.



Image

Image

Image

Steve

mtuell
Posts: 289
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 12:42 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Contact:

Post by mtuell »

Nice one Steve, thanks for sharing! :shock:

Mike

nanometer
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2016 10:14 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ

Post by nanometer »

Thanks Mike! I got a better one tonight using the macro lens and umbrella. Just had to wait it out after I got set up.

Image

MarkSturtevant
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 6:52 pm
Location: Michigan, U.S.A.
Contact:

Post by MarkSturtevant »

Wow! I have recently seen these too. Would like to try sneaking up on them at night as well. I think the genus is Geolycosa.
Mark Sturtevant
Dept. of Still Waters

Troels
Posts: 600
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 11:06 am
Location: Denmark, Engesvang
Contact:

Post by Troels »

Wow, your last picture has so much better color, texture and depth.
It is a clear demonstration af the difference between direct flash and diffused light.
Troels Holm, biologist (retired), environmentalist, amateur photographer.
Visit my Flickr albums

davholla
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 4:05 am

Post by davholla »

Troels wrote:Wow, your last picture has so much better color, texture and depth.
It is a clear demonstration af the difference between direct flash and diffused light.
Do you think that the sharpness comes from the lens? I have taken a few macro photos with my Tamron 150-600 and seen many others have taken with a telephoto lens and I don't think they are so good as with a macro lens.

Troels
Posts: 600
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 11:06 am
Location: Denmark, Engesvang
Contact:

Post by Troels »

Davholla,
My comment was more about the light than the lenses. I would heistate to evaluate the lenses based on reduced uploads.

It is obvious that the last picture makes the sharpest impression of the two close-up portraits. But that is partly because the first has its focus placed a little in front of the eyes while the last one has the eyes exactly in focus.

Steve doesn't menstion it, but I suppose he had to use som kind of extension to focus a 400 mm tele that close for the first pictures. That could perhaps give the tele lens less than optimal working conditions?
Troels Holm, biologist (retired), environmentalist, amateur photographer.
Visit my Flickr albums

davholla
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 4:05 am

Post by davholla »

Troels wrote:Davholla,
My comment was more about the light than the lenses. I would heistate to evaluate the lenses based on reduced uploads.
Good point, although I think from other shots that telephoto lens don't get the same quality of shot as macro - which is a great shame IMHO. I photographed a Tarantula hawk wasp with my Tamron 150-600 in Colombia recently (far too shy to use a macro lens) and it was ok (I have not processed it yet) but not as good as with a macro lens.

Deanimator
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.

Re: wolf spider

Post by Deanimator »

nanometer wrote:Taken at night with flash. Had to use 400mm telephoto as it wouldn't let me get close before heading down the hole.
Very nice.

nanometer
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2016 10:14 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ

Post by nanometer »

Thanks all for the comments. The telephoto shot was indeed front-focused. I just switched cameras to an A99ii, and had not yet set my AF adjustments for the lens. I did not need an extender on my sony 70-400G for this shot as it has a close focus mode which is not quite macro but pretty good. I still think that that lens turns out much better photos than this one represented.

That telephoto shot is bad for reasons of front-focus, lighting, and it just doesn't work as well as a dedicated macro. The macro and softbox did make a big difference. The white balance looks correct on my monitor, but for some reason, viewed on the same monitor through this site, it looks somewhat yellow cast. I can't figure out why.

I agree lighting type and dedicated macro lens makes a big difference, and I was able to adjust the micro-focus on the macro before taking this shot, so the AF focused close to the eye like I wanted.

Alas, the spider disappeared from its hole a few days after taking the macro shot, so I'm not getting another chance.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23562
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

nanometer wrote:The white balance looks correct on my monitor, but for some reason, viewed on the same monitor through this site, it looks somewhat yellow cast. I can't figure out why.
I suspect it's a matter of color contrast against the somewhat blue tone of this site's background colors.

--Rik

Ken Ramos
Posts: 7208
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:12 pm
Location: lat=35.4005&lon=-81.9841

Post by Ken Ramos »

Those are some really nice shots, great details! 8)

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic