Probably My Best Bumble Bee

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:35 am

Bumble Bees, for me, seem hard to get a fair shot of. Their little faces are dark, as is much of the rest of them, so bringing out details, other than the light colored hairs is difficult at best.

EOS 30D w/EF-100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, 1/125 sec. @ f/9 ISO 100, 430EX Speedlite ETTL, PP: Photoshop Elements 4 Loc: Rutherford Co. WNC

P_T · Post by **P_T** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:45 am

Specially with that yellow flower in the frame as well, well done indeed!

What sort of metering did you use? Spot?

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:52 am

Thanks P_T

I used evaluative metering.

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:23 am

I think you have to decide that the bee is the main subject and overexpose by half a stop.

Harold

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:51 am

Thanks Harold, I will have to keep that in mind next time.

Mike B in OKlahoma · Post by **Mike B in OKlahoma** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:23 pm

Harold's advice about choosing a main subject and getting it right is (usually) good, IMO. But there are always special cases and artsy shots, not that I make many of those!

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:39 pm

Harold Gough wrote:I think you have to decide that the bee is the main subject and overexpose by half a stop.

This is a case where shooting raw can be a big help.

I'd be very reluctant to overexpose that flower by 1/2 stop, because I expect that one or two of the color channels would blow out. Even in the image as presented, there are some (254,255,67)'s.

On the other hand, I'd be perfectly happy to brighten up the bee's face in post-processing, probably using some sort of levels or curves adjustment with a mask to keep it away from that bright flower. That would work better if the image is 16 bits at the time the level adjustment was applied.

If you'd like to see what I mean, let me know and I can post out an example (your image edited).

--Rik

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:34 am

Rik wrote:

If you'd like to see what I mean, let me know and I can post out an example (your image edited).

Bee my guest

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:47 am

rjlittlefield wrote:
Harold Gough wrote:I think you have to decide that the bee is the main subject and overexpose by half a stop.
This is a case where shooting raw can be a big help.

I'd be very reluctant to overexpose that flower by 1/2 stop, because I expect that one or two of the color channels would blow out. Even in the image as presented, there are some (254,255,67)'s.

--Rik

Oh, for the tone range of a good reversal film!

Harold

lauriek · Post by **lauriek** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:50 am

I suspect a well exposed RAW file from a modern DSLR has more tonal range available than any film ever made. But I could be wrong!

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:49 am

Ken, here's a modified image and how I did it.

--Rik

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:53 am

lauriek wrote:I suspect a well exposed RAW file from a modern DSLR has more tonal range available than any film ever made.

It's getting closer, but film still wins. See for example "35mm Film vs DSLR: Gradation, Resolution, and Dynamic Range". (Caution, long load time due to many images).

A critical excerpt:

Dynamic range of the film is significantly greater than the DSLR -- approximately 15 f-stops for film versus 11 f-stops for the DSLR, as measured by ability to recover medium contrast detail at 20 line pairs per mm.

--Rik

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:41 pm

Some interesting stuff there Rik and quite a marked improvement.

My histogram in PSE 4 looks nothing like that though but maybe it will do do the same thing. This is something that I am unfamiliar with but I will see if my PS version will do it and experiment a little bit. Thanks!

lauriek · Post by **lauriek** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:29 pm

I stand corrected. Thanks Rik!

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:23 pm

The modified image is a major improvement, increasing detail of most part of the bee.

Harold