A lousy shot but...........

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

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Danny
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

A lousy shot but...........

Post by Danny »

Quite a bit of lens curvature with this shot from the added el-cheapo mag lens.

Had to post it because this is the fattest, ugliest female mosquito I have ever seen !!. I hope thats not all my blood sitting there, greedy bugga.

All the best folks and yep, not a great shot, but this thing was massive. :wink:

Danny.

Image
Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.

Planapo
Posts: 1581
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:33 am
Location: Germany, in the United States of Europe

Post by Planapo »

Danny, don´t worry, I don´t think that this "greedy bugga" would want any of your blood. :D

You´re right it´s a true fly (Diptera), but not a mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae).

To me it looks like a bibionid fly (Diptera: Bibionidae). You may know websites or field guides where to look it up now and see for a comparison how your Bibionidae down there look like. And if so, let us know what you´ve found.

--Betty

Erland R.N.
Posts: 335
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:20 pm
Location: Kolding, Denmark
Contact:

Post by Erland R.N. »

I've never seen anything remotely similar to this. Great post.

Had the photo been pin-sharp on the insects head too, it would probably just reveal yet another scary feature about this rather ugly "bug" :D

Erland

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

Post by Ken Ramos »

I agree with Erland, this is one ugly bug :lol: Yes quite a bit of lens curvature there, this type of close-in work would have been better had one used a dedicated macro or maybe a 50mm or other, reversed lens on the primary, even an auxilary achromatic close-up lens would have been fine. As it is, the image of the insect looks as though the camera lens had been "forced" to take the photograph or pushed slightly beyond the edge of the camera lens focal limits. Also the photograph appears to be over sharpened to try and compensate for depth of field in smaller areas, don't know about that one. Comp and crop look good but there is something there amiss that I cannot put my finger on though, maybe the background, looks sort of bland but then again, shooting aunatural, you gotta take what you can get. :-k A passable image for ones scrapbook I would think. :wink:

Wonder if I could get a job on "American Idol?" :-k

salden
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:40 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by salden »

Danny, another one of your strange looking insects. I love the little critters you have down there.

I agree with Ken on this one Danny. The background is distracting. Not blurred enough to enhance your subject and not sharp enough to add any substance. I would blur that background more and that would be accomplished by changing your aperture a bit. Try an aperture of F11, or even F16 to experiment, this looks more like around F8. The blurred background and the blurred foreground with the sharp image in the center has divided the picture plane.

Basically, everything in the front of your image should be in focus. There are exceptions, but this is not one of them. :lol: It is difficult to do this in macro, but that rock your insect is on distracts in it's blurred form.

Focus more on the front of the insect. This is where the contrast in colors shine. The neutral tones in the body of the insect is more inline with the background and do not stand out as much; so if this area blurs gradually into the background, it will not substract from the image. Bring the front legs in focus with the head and let the rest of the insect gradually blur to the background. It looks like the focus is centered on the insect's midsection.

Looks like some .jpeg artifacts as well, but could be the result of oversharpening of your subject.

Also, your subject is sparkling :lol: Did you use flash on this? Looks like your subject is wet and the flash picked up on this.

Overall, not bad but can be improved as is the case with most images. All in all photography is subjective, so take what I say with a gain of salt and a glass of wine :lol:
Sue Alden

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23561
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Danny,

I agree with all the previous replies on this one. Good insights and advice.

A couple more points that I didn't see mentioned...

About the background, sometimes that can be fixed up in post-processing by adding some additional blur. With a bit of Photoshop work, you can have your sharp subject and your blurred background too. Take a look at this much earlier post for an example and discussion. I often use this technique when working with compact digital cameras, where often the lens just won't open up far enough to get a nice blurred background straight from the optics. I also use it on a couple of DSLR lenses that have lousy bokeh otherwise.

About the flash, you might also consider using some kind of big floppy diffuser. Often that can eliminate the sparkly effect and expose fine texture on your subject. Downsides are that you have to carry the thing, it can be awkward to work with, and maybe it's more likely to spook your subject. In a pinch, draping a white handkerchief in front of your flash is worth a try, assuming you have time for a second shot after you've already gotten some usable image into the camera.

It's an interesting bug, and a good opportunity for discussion. Thanks for posting! :D

--Rik

puzzledpaul
Posts: 414
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:15 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by puzzledpaul »

<< I would blur that background more and that would be accomplished by changing your aperture a bit. Try an aperture of F11, or even F16 to experiment, this looks more like around F8. >>

Isn't this a typo ?

<< About the background, sometimes that can be fixed up in post-processing by adding some additional blur. With a bit of Photoshop work, you can have your sharp subject and your blurred background too. >>

The approach I've taken when doing this - working on underneath copy - prior to blurring it, is to clone bg into the main subject around the edges, so that after blurring, there's no chance of (blurred subject cols) overspill past the subject - when the blurred bg is exposed via the upper layer's mask.

A weird beastie indeed, Danny - suspect you weren't using your usual rig?

pp
Boxes, bottlebottoms, bits, bobs.

salden
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:40 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by salden »

Paul you are correct. I was thinking to sharpen up the front a bit more, but typing about blurring the background. F6 or F4 would be better. You can also use a telephoto len if you can get your focusing distance close enough to your subject, since the zoom would need to be on maximum.
Sue Alden

Danny
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Post by Danny »

Well there you go right there. This is exactly how to critique an image folks. Take a good look at the advice there. Done by experts and its something we learn from. Phew, thanks folks.

Question is, can we be this helpful on the image by itself without getting into the complicated technical side of things. With these types of critiques is where we learn to be a better photographer and not just a better technical shooter. There is a difference.

Well, I actually did get caught out, because I did think this was a mosquito, so a huge thanks Betty, thats what we need to know as well. I saw what I thought was blood in the body, am I wrong with that and its not blood ??

Ahh Paul, this was done just a day or two ago for certain reasons and just a real cheap plastic magnifying glass was used. The surrounding area is totally unacceptable IMO, the curvature of the lens is obviously shocking to say the least. I have used glass ones before but plastic just doesn't cut it.

The DOF just makes it, but the details are lacking and the lighting if we look at it has far too many highlights as shown in the body and the legs. Diffused lighting would make a lot more sense. The composition I would be happy about. The colours should be more vibrant as well with blacks being more black in depth IMO. A fair bit of noise right through the body area and that was done by over sharpening using selective sharpening.

I think thats about it.

All the best folks and a huge thanks, very much appreciated :lol:

Danny.
Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic