A Real Gray Hairstreak...

[Ken Ramos]

Of course you guessed it by the header I thought these turned out rather well and they are conversions by the way. Since we are limited to only three images, I will show these first, the color ones later. As a matter of note, there has been no sharpening applied to the images. The blue channel pulled slightly and a click on the + side of the contrast in Photo Impact 6.




Hairstreak
EOS 30D
Manual mode/hand held
High noon and sunny
1/125 sec. @ f/8 ISO 100
EF-100mm f/2.8 macro
430EX Speedlite, full flash

[beetleman]

Very Nice Ken. The single stalk and the background work very well. I like the second one a little better, fills the frame up more. The antennae sticks out in B&W really nice

[Ken Ramos]

Thanks Doug. The first was a crop right off the frame as it was from the camera, somewhere around 27%, the second was at 50%. Yeah I like the way the backgrounds turned out too and the second does fill the frame a bit better. Really though, I like the verticle.

[rjlittlefield]

Gee, Ken, these pics are really reminding me of the old days now!

I prefer the vertical format too, but I might have cropped some off the top & left to get in closer and move the subject off-center.* I've also taken to blurring backgrounds a bit more to soften the bokeh. That's a small thing, maybe not worth the trouble here. Let me know if you want to see what it does.

BTW, in pic #1 you've captured typical egg-laying behavior. The eggs are tiny balls, slightly flattened, with a very detailed lacework texture. Something like what's shown here, I suspect. A couple of them would make interesting (though challenging!) subjects for your microscope.

--Rik

* Referencing against your pic #1, I'm thinking something like X=57, Y=165, W=462, H=608.

[Ken Ramos]

Seems I read somewhere that the more petals the iris has to make a rounder aprature, the better the bokeh. I have never thought to count the number of petals in either of my lenses but having had read that somehwere, it is now one of the things I look for in lens construction. I would be interested in seeing what you did with the image, so go head and post it in this thread if you wish.

As for microscopy, those days are pretty much finished as far as photography goes. Digicamming is really not worth the time, considering the quality of photographs that I get. It is okay if you want images for reference or study but as for photography, it is just to #@!# expensive to get really good shots unless you have all the whistles and bells and there are not many things to photograph without specialized equipment. I do however, still use my scopes to satisfy my curiosity though. Thanks Rik!

[rjlittlefield]

Here's the modified image, Ken. BTW, the signature matters. If you take away that white writing in lower right, then the composition looks less balanced, TMEA (to my eye, anyway).

Seems I read somewhere that the more petals the iris has to make a rounder aprature, the better the bokeh.

Number of leaves in the iris is a factor, but it seems that lens aberrations outside the focus plane are even more important. See discussion and links here, especially http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml at Figure 6 and following. Unfortunately those aberrations can't be determined just by looking in the front of the lens. My personal cut is that test images are about the only way to get reliable info.

I sure understand your feelings about photographing through the microscope. Most of the subjects I want to shoot have depth, so I have to do that blankety-blank extended depth of field stuff. It's frustrating, but I do it 'cuz it's the only way I can get what I want.

--Rik

[Ken Ramos]

Yeah the background does look a bit better there Rik, a little less brassy I think. Thanks

[Ken Ramos]

By the way here are the color images.





Wha do ya think