Working on field stacking

[mark_h]

I went out with my Olympus E-3 and a Sigma 150. These 3 are stacked using Zerene Stacker . Used a tripod, I can't hold the 150 steady for multiple shots getting old, also used a flash at 1/128th. Not perfect but getting better

[sonyalpha]

Hi, Mark:


Well Done!

Of the three the second shot is the best for me because it is concentrated on the main subject.........a Daddy Longlegs ...or...Cranefly I think?

It would have been better to focus on one or other of the main beetles in your first shot..............the LH one with the droplets would have been my choice:

The fly is soft and out of focus and overall rather bright and your background colour is just right:

There are better experts than me on here.............I was at your stage at the beginning of this year...................with help and advice from them I have made real progress, but there is still room for improvement:
To read the replies to my recent posts in the Close-up section may help you:

I look forward to seeing more of your work soon:

sonyalpha

[DaveW]

As SonyA, says due to depth of field problems isolation can often work best in macro. The beetle with dewdrops would have looked great as an isolated image. Alas however real world situations often do not allow us to isolate the subject. However getting everything important in focus and everything unimportant so out of focus it does not attract the viewers attention always tends to make for a great shot. Alas those situations are far rarer than we would want.

Perhaps it is just me (yes they all cry!) but I would like to see all the insects legs in the shot in your second image (lesser magnification would also give you greater depth of field). With cropping, either in camera or post processing, you need to show all the subject, or at least crop radically so it looks intentional. In human portraiture the old rules like don't just crop the feet off as it looks accidental, but cropping above or below the knee is OK because it looks intentional usually works. To quote from the Web:-

"When you are to crop off a picture involving legs or arms it’s a good rule don’t crop at a joint to avoid ‘amputation’ effect. Do crop either above or below the joints."

Insect photography is really just portraits in miniature to me?

DaveW

[rjlittlefield]

Mark, these are definitely moving in the right direction.

Using a tripod for stacking makes life much simpler and gives a cleaner result in the bargain -- no need to apologize for that!

When you say "flash at 1/128th", are you talking about a power setting? If so, that looks like a good choice. I'm not seeing any motion blur, and there's still enough light in the background to give a natural appearance.

The second image (yes, it's a crane fly) is by far my favorite of these three. I disagree with DaveW about the composition. Moving back to include all the legs would have produced a probably boring "snapshot" appearance, showing little if any of the interesting detail in the abdomen and head. Actually my one complaint about this image is that the head is not sharp. Another frame or two catching the eyes and palps in perfect focus would have added a lot, I think.

In the first picture, you have a good capture of dewdrops on the back of one of the bugs. (They're not "beetles" -- that's completely the wrong order. Most likely Large Milkweed Bug, Oncopeltus fasciatus; see for example HERE.) The biggest drawback of this image for me is the OOF blob overlaying a lot of the left side of the image. Things like this can be easy to overlook when your attention is focused on something else like the dewdrops. Having a mental checklist of things to watch for may help.

The third image, fly on the seedhead, seems fuzzy everywhere. Any explanation? I'm wondering if you stopped down way too far on this one, or maybe it's an extreme crop?

--Rik

[DaveW]

"I disagree with DaveW about the composition. Moving back to include all the legs would have produced a probably boring "snapshot" appearance, showing little if any of the interesting detail in the abdomen and head."

I always thought snapshots were where occasional photographers cut part of the heads, arms or legs off Rik, or had a tree growing out of their subjects heads? Evidently it is different in the USA?

Being able to see the abdomen at that size is really a question of final image size. If printing out a larger print would have maintained the same body size but could have encompassed the legs if they had been in the initial frame. All a matter of preferences I suppose, but what is not in the original image you cannot put back later, you can always crop it off if needed.

DaveW

[mark_h]

I just wanted to let you know I am off reviewing the suggestions and comments. I am very excited to have your input and am anticipating my further improvements.

[rjlittlefield]

I always thought snapshots were where occasional photographers cut part of the heads, arms or legs off Rik, or had a tree growing out of their subjects heads?

Wikipedia defines snapshot this way:

...a photograph that is "shot" spontaneously and quickly, most often without artistic or journalistic intent.

In pictures of people, the attributes you mention are common indicators of snapshooting.

In macro pictures, common indicators of snapshooting are low magnification, lots of background, and backing off for DOF at the expense of visible detail -- all of which seemed to be the direction your recommendations to mark_h were going.

All a matter of preferences I suppose

Indeed, which is why I twitch at your wording that "you need to show all the subject, or at least crop radically so it looks intentional" (emphasis added). Preferences aside, in my opinion the current crop is already radical enough to look quite intentional. Of the six legs shown in the crane fly photo, four have been cropped to roughly half their full length, one is shown in its entirety though very OOF, and only one is cropped near its foot. Given the anatomy of these beasts, to have included the entire leg that is sticking down plus the entire leg that is sticking up would have required shrinking the image to less than half its current scale. The result would have been a very different picture, and one much more typical of a macro snapshooter than a tripod-wielding field stacker.

--Rik

[mark_h]

Thank you Sonyalpha, DaveW and Rik for taking the time to reply.
I have gone over the suggestions and found valuable things to consider;
- identify the subject of the image, bug or fly or no identification is an oppurtunity lost to learn more about the subject.
- Attention to detail like blurs or not taking enough shots for a stack are image killers too late when you discover them them at home
- make a decision about the purpose of the final image is it a head shot, a full specimen or selective parts.
- be specific with technical details like flash settings again an oppurtunity to learn an share
meaningful details about the process.
- if I am going learn from posting on this site only the best images can make me better.

Sonyalpha

The first image is as Rik suggested Large milkweed bug - Oncopeltus fasciatus. I did not see the blurring in the field, the sun had started to come out and the insects were starting to move around. I do see the need to think about the composition of the shot as part of the field shooting.

The second image is in fact a crane fly - Tipula luna, they are commonly referred to as daddy long legs in the United Kingdom, South Africa, Ireland and Newfoundland. I would have liked to have gotten the wings in focus but took too few shots to complete the stack.

I expect that with the mentoring available there I will improve and thank you for your comments

DaveW

I have revisited the crane fly image and looked at your suggestion, I could not get the legs all the way to the tips because the fly was sitting in an ornimental grass and had it's legs on blades of grass as several levels the DOF was too great for the situation, it was raining and there was a slight breeze. I did do another another stack and re crop to include more legs I think the result is less intresting more. I do appreciate your comments I had not thought much about the similatities to portraits.


Rik
The 1/128th is in fact a power setting, I have a short snout and a defusser on a Olympus FL-36 flash.
Looking at the last image a common greenbottle fly I over processed it. I re did it again with better results.

I feel like a rookie at the big league ball park

[DaveW]

Unlike Rik I prefer your second crane fly image since it looks far less cramped in the frame, plus as it is not magnified so much the legs and more water drops are sharper since the circle of confusion has not been enlarged so much.

In an ideal world if you want a larger image it is always best to crop in the camera viewfinder when taking to get the largest image on the sensor than crop afterwards. However ideal worlds do not exist for most of us so we all crop images later because we can seldom get close enough, or crop that precisely at the taking stage.

You could crop a little more off the left hand side of the frame, to say the second water drop.

DaveW