Orb-Weaver in my backyard
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
- Posts: 212
- Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:03 am
- Location: Sourthern California
Orb-Weaver in my backyard
This spider and its relatives have staked out a spot outside our kitchen window for the last twenty years. It seldom moves more than a few feet from this spot which makes it a convenient subject for experimentation. I have been learning how to use my new bellows with a reversed enlarger lens. I am inspired by all the great image stacking I see here and hope to learn from all of you.
This was shot with a Nikon D50 in manual mode, PB-6 bellows, 105 mm Rodagon enlarger lens (at f/11) and Nikon SB-800 flash in manual mode. The flash is diffused with 12-inch diameter white, translucent plastic film about a foot in front of the flash.
Comments and criticism welcomed.
Roy
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Roy,
Nice photo, and what a lovely subject to experiment with!
This looks very similar to the orb weaver that I played with a few months ago (here). Mine turned out to be incredibly cooperative about sitting still to be stacked (here).
I notice in your picture here that the abdomen is in sharp focus while the head is not. You have quite a bit of DOF with this size specimen, and I'm thinking this would be a good subject to stack in the field. Even just a second frame, focused on the head and manually merged if necessary, would add a lot of detail and impact.
One other comment... On my screen, the image that's posted right now looks pretty dark and washed out. Adjusting levels to make the whole thing brighter brings out more colors and detail and makes the photo grab my attention better. Of course it also changes the overall impression, so this is very much a matter of taste. Adjusting the levels to turn [8,167] into [0,255] gave a result that I like, but just play with it and see what gives the effect you want.
Hope this is helpful!
--Rik
Nice photo, and what a lovely subject to experiment with!
This looks very similar to the orb weaver that I played with a few months ago (here). Mine turned out to be incredibly cooperative about sitting still to be stacked (here).
I notice in your picture here that the abdomen is in sharp focus while the head is not. You have quite a bit of DOF with this size specimen, and I'm thinking this would be a good subject to stack in the field. Even just a second frame, focused on the head and manually merged if necessary, would add a lot of detail and impact.
One other comment... On my screen, the image that's posted right now looks pretty dark and washed out. Adjusting levels to make the whole thing brighter brings out more colors and detail and makes the photo grab my attention better. Of course it also changes the overall impression, so this is very much a matter of taste. Adjusting the levels to turn [8,167] into [0,255] gave a result that I like, but just play with it and see what gives the effect you want.
Hope this is helpful!
--Rik
- jaharris1001
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:26 pm
- Location: Deltona Florida
- Carl_Constantine
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 am
- Location: Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
- Contact:
- augusthouse
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:39 am
- Location: New South Wales Australia
Roy,
Just following up on Rik's observation in regard to adjusting the 'levels'.
In Photoshop CS2, I went to Image>Adjustments>Levels/ and in the RGB Channel set Input Levels at 19/1.00/208. Output Levels 0/255.
I also increased Contrast by 20%. It had a significant impact even though I was only working with the 145kb image in your original post.
As per forum policy, I can't post the resulting image without your permission.
The detail in your image is impressive. Definitely worth a stack. CombineZM can be dowloaded for free.
Here are a couple of info links.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/macroviewe ... ss/163367/
http://www.digitalgrin.com/showthread.php?t=61316
Craig
Just following up on Rik's observation in regard to adjusting the 'levels'.
In Photoshop CS2, I went to Image>Adjustments>Levels/ and in the RGB Channel set Input Levels at 19/1.00/208. Output Levels 0/255.
I also increased Contrast by 20%. It had a significant impact even though I was only working with the 145kb image in your original post.
As per forum policy, I can't post the resulting image without your permission.
The detail in your image is impressive. Definitely worth a stack. CombineZM can be dowloaded for free.
Here are a couple of info links.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/macroviewe ... ss/163367/
http://www.digitalgrin.com/showthread.php?t=61316
Craig
To use a classic quote from 'Antz' - "I almost know exactly what I'm doing!"
-
- Posts: 212
- Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:03 am
- Location: Sourthern California
Thanks to everyone for the kind and helpful comments.
Seconds after I hit the "Submit" button I realized the image was too dark. I think I was trying too hard not to manipulate the image. Upon further reflection, the dark background and the darkish spider add up to a lower dynamic range which does look better if the range is stretched.
Rik,
I tried your suggestion and the image looks much better. The color is still too brown–next time I'll add a white balance card. My intent is to try stacking images to increase the DOF. I was really impressed with your spider stack. The "hairs" on the head were really sharp on your image.
Carl,
Last week's unpublished attempt did use an extremely long lens. I tried to use my 70-300 with all my extension tubes to get the same magnification. It looked like shooting the spider with a bazooka! I finally received all the adapters I needed to reverse the lens on the bellows.
Craig,
Thanks for the processing suggestion and the links. I am reading everything I can find on the subject of macro and stacking. Rik and Charles Krebs are responsible for "encouraging" me to purchase this new gear.
Ken,
Even though I enjoy looking at all the great spider pictures I still don't like meeting them in the yard. Today I picked up a bag and a Black Widow was lurking underneath. Now I need to keep a capture jar at the ready.
If I can figure out how to post another image, I will add it to the thread. I think I succeeded.
Thanks again for your encouragement and please excuse me for being verbose.
Roy
Seconds after I hit the "Submit" button I realized the image was too dark. I think I was trying too hard not to manipulate the image. Upon further reflection, the dark background and the darkish spider add up to a lower dynamic range which does look better if the range is stretched.
Rik,
I tried your suggestion and the image looks much better. The color is still too brown–next time I'll add a white balance card. My intent is to try stacking images to increase the DOF. I was really impressed with your spider stack. The "hairs" on the head were really sharp on your image.
Carl,
Last week's unpublished attempt did use an extremely long lens. I tried to use my 70-300 with all my extension tubes to get the same magnification. It looked like shooting the spider with a bazooka! I finally received all the adapters I needed to reverse the lens on the bellows.
Craig,
Thanks for the processing suggestion and the links. I am reading everything I can find on the subject of macro and stacking. Rik and Charles Krebs are responsible for "encouraging" me to purchase this new gear.
Ken,
Even though I enjoy looking at all the great spider pictures I still don't like meeting them in the yard. Today I picked up a bag and a Black Widow was lurking underneath. Now I need to keep a capture jar at the ready.
If I can figure out how to post another image, I will add it to the thread. I think I succeeded.
Thanks again for your encouragement and please excuse me for being verbose.
Roy
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Ah, much improved!
Roy, policy at photomacrography.net is pretty generous about image manipulations. The key question is simply "Does this picture faithfully represent what a viewer of the real subject would see?" If it does not, then readers need to know; if it does, they don't.
Check the posting guidelines if in doubt, but generally speaking routine level adjustments, color balancing, and sharpening don't even need to be declared.
--Rik
Roy, policy at photomacrography.net is pretty generous about image manipulations. The key question is simply "Does this picture faithfully represent what a viewer of the real subject would see?" If it does not, then readers need to know; if it does, they don't.
Check the posting guidelines if in doubt, but generally speaking routine level adjustments, color balancing, and sharpening don't even need to be declared.
--Rik