Spider

Earlier images, not yet re-categorized. All subject types. Not for new images.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

PhilH
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 2:54 pm
Location: East Yorkshire, UK

Spider

Post by PhilH »

I have no idea what spider it is but i've been playing with my settings again :wink: C&C welcome as always.

Both pics are: ISO 400 - f/8 - Shutter 1/200 - 60mm focal length

Image

Image
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday... and all's well!

Ken Ramos
Posts: 7208
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:12 pm
Location: lat=35.4005&lon=-81.9841

Post by Ken Ramos »

Now you're getting somewhere Phil :D See...wasn't alll that hard was it :?: :lol: Nice photo, now go do some more to show us. :D

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 22394
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Bingo! Very nice. :D

You've done an especially good job of picking viewpoints that put a lot of the spider near the focal plane. For example in picture #1, you have the cephalothorax, the abdomen, and 3 of 4 foreground legs all pretty close to in-focus, even with a fairly wide aperture that gives great resolution. Given so much fine detail to appreciate, the viewer really doesn't care that the background legs and one of the foreground legs are fuzzy. This is what's called "good control of DOF". The best photographers seem to do this consistently and effortlessly (though I suppose they'd never tell us if they were grunting and puffing on the inside!).

Picture #2 does not look as sharp as #1, but it's at so much higher magnification that the tradeoffs are a lot tougher. The dramatic viewpoint prevents putting more parts in the focal plane, and the live spider prevents stacking.* So you're stuck with the tradeoff between fuzziness caused by diffraction & limited DOF caused by geometric blur when setting aperture. Overall, I'd guess that you got this one close to perfect.

--Rik

[*] If the spider is not live, then stacking lets you get around the DOF/diffraction tradeoff. See, for example, this old post .

PhilH
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 2:54 pm
Location: East Yorkshire, UK

Post by PhilH »

Thanks guys, I think things are finally coming together though I realise I still have a long way to go. :)

A special thankyou to DaveW for pointing me in the right direction and having patience when it seemed like, no matter how hard his head hit the wall, it was never gonna fall. :D
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday... and all's well!

Bruce Williams
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: Northamptonshire, England
Contact:

Post by Bruce Williams »

Two quite different studies, both nicely executed.

Well done.

Bruce :D

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic