Yellowjacket Mimic Fly - Spilomyia Longicornis

crotermund · Post by **crotermund** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:29 pm

I always liked the eyes on this particular fly. The pictures are very similar, but any input regarding which one might be more desirable is appreciated.

He waved to me before taking off...

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 10:20 pm

It's pic #1 for my tastes.

The crop is just a bit tighter (bigger subject), I prefer the light fly against the darker background, it seems like there are fewer distracting flower elements, and (dang, it's the day for confusion!) my brain is not dragged away trying to figure out what that thing sticking out front is.

On the other hand, it would be nice to have such a crisp in-focus hind leg as in pic #2. I don't suppose...nah, that would be cheating...unless, of course, you told us it was a manual stack...

--Rik

Mike B in OKlahoma · Post by **Mike B in OKlahoma** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 10:33 pm

I agree that the fly looks better against a dark background.

For some reason, the red spot on the eye seems more prominent on #2. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not (probably is).

Bruce Williams · Post by **Bruce Williams** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:35 am

Yes, my preference is pic1 as well. The photo is (IMO) all about the insect's extraordinary eyes - and the eye has greater impact in pic1 (for the reasons already mentioned).

Rik raises an interesting point though:

On the other hand, it would be nice to have such a crisp in-focus hind leg as in pic #2. I don't suppose...nah, that would be cheating...unless, of course, you told us it was a manual stack...

What is the Forum's view about merging 2 (or possibly more) images of the same subject, taken at the same time, in order to get the best possible composite? In this example, replacing the OOF back leg in pic1 with the sharper leg from pic2 (would probably need to be slightly resized, rotated and level adjusted)?

As implied in Rik's posting, It would seem to me to be similar in principle to the methods of stacking and stitching that many of us routinely employ. Whilst this sort of information is clearly helpful to the "viewer" from a technical point of view, is there an obligation on the postee to provide this sort of information?

How about taking this question that bit further: What would be the view on a posting of a completely plausable composite with say, the head, leg and abdomen all taken from different individuals of the same species?

Both excellent pics Craig

Bruce

beetleman · Post by **beetleman** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:00 am

The eyes have it on this fly Craig and that is what is highlighted in picture #1. I don`t think the rear leg is that bad in pic #1 IMO. It looks like he is waving hello in the second picture

crotermund · Post by **crotermund** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:24 pm

Thanks a lot for the feedback everybody. I love it when the talk turns a bit philosophical. I have scanned the site for any "rules" regarding photo manipulation and didn't see any specifically. I didn't even think about a little leg swap until Rik mentioned it and I don't think it would be too difficult a procedure.

Anyway, the whole question of whether or not something is "cheating" is a curious one. In looking at a photo as an end product or work of art, it is difficult to see a difference between using a stacking program or doing it manually to fix something like the oof leg. Everybody uses a different combination of tools to achieve the end result -- a photo to share. Cropping, lighting adjustments, editing out an unwanted distraction, sharpening, etc. all seem like "acceptable" alterations, but where do you draw the line?

I'm merely rambling, of course, as I find the topic quite interesting. Bruce asked

Whilst this sort of information is clearly helpful to the "viewer" from a technical point of view, is there an obligation on the postee to provide this sort of information?

Personally, Bruce, I don't think one should be obligated to include alteration information in every post, but I do believe that a person should be obligated to answer honestly if someone asks about a post. I think the alteration information is technically very useful at times and like to see it, but other times I think it might take some of the magic out of the end result. Again, I am rambling.

Regarding your 2nd question Bruce:

How about taking this question that bit further: What would be the view on a posting of a completely plausable composite with say, the head, leg and abdomen all taken from different individuals of the same species?

This seems like it might be taking the edits too far

, but it is hard to know where exactly to draw the line w/o any clear guidelines.

It's always interesting guys. Anybody else have some thoughts to share on this topic? I hope I didn't run it into the ground.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:40 pm

crotermund wrote:I love it when the talk turns a bit philosophical.

Philosophy, I love it too!

Actually when I wrote "nah, that would be cheating", I did not intend to be talking about policy! It was just supposed to be a bit quirky and hopefully amusing way to make a suggestion. Oops!

...it is hard to know where exactly to draw the line w/o any clear guidelines...

Well, here's what we have to work with:

The Guidelines wrote:Digital enhancement of an image is allowed for contrast control, color corrections, and crop/sizing. Any digital enhancements that alter the "naturalness" of the subject must be declared in the image post. Any image that has had digital enhancements that deviate a considerable amount beyond reality should be so noted in the post.

Now I guess we could haggle over what "considerable amount" and "reality" mean, but it's a lot easier to list examples and say "This seems OK but that doesn't."

As it happens, I agree completely with your examples. Increasing DOF by combining pictures of the same bug in slightly different poses seems OK. In fact, if you peruse the forum's articles, you'll be led to one by Mark Plonsky that focuses on how to do just that. But combining pictures of different bugs seems like going too far.

If you press me for a reason, I'll probably mutter something about "risk of putting together stuff that really doesn't belong". It's common practice for scientific illustrators to use bits and pieces of various specimens as models for their work, but those people are either subject-matter experts themselves or work with people who are. So they're not likely to mess up.

For most of us, it's just way too easy to create chimeras by accident -- the body of an X, the wing of a Y. Years ago, I watched a museum curator have great fun rearranging a collection of butterflies. "No, no, these don't go together at all. Look, see this third dot from the tail -- in an X it's sort of triangular and silvery, but in a Y it's more crescent shaped and plain white." (Uh, yeah, that was my collection. Speyeria are a tough group.)

This is just me speaking, not Policy. But does that help?

--Rik

Danny · Post by **Danny** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:03 am

Well these are spectacular Craig. Me being me would have to go for the second shot because I know whats its doing and I love behaviour shots more than anything.

Would I cheat to get what I wanted, you bet I would..........and do. Always disclosed though. How far would I go, probably a lot further than anyone here.

All the best Craig, excellent work

Danny.

crotermund · Post by **crotermund** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:06 am

Thanks a lot Rik & Danny, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Rik, I know you were just kidding around when you said, "nah, that would be cheating", but since Bruce opened that "can of worms"

I couldn't let the topic slide. Your thoughts and the guidelines do help. Thanks again.

twebster · Post by **twebster** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:31 am

My preference is with image #2, also. I like the background better and image #1, IMHO, has too many tonal mergers between the body segments, wing, and the background.

As regards digital composites, I have nothing against them at all. I do, however, feel that digital composites should be revealed when the image is posted. I do not feel that it is enough to wait for someone to ask if it a digitally composited image. Disclosure is always the best option. That doesn't mean you have to disclose every digital improvement to an image. Cloning out dust spots, density/color/contrast manipulations are all holdovers from common "wet" darkroom manipulations. Digital compositing, however, is another issue and should be disclosed at the time the image is posted.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it

Cyclops · Post by **Cyclops** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:12 am

Personally i'd be happy with either shot,they're both very good!

Danny · Post by **Danny** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:52 pm

I keep coming back to these Craig and not only for the comments here which are interesting BTW. I just find these two particular shots amazing. The subject is to die for and your technique is excellent !!!. Man, I wish these were mine

Danny.