Blue Bottle

[PhilH]

Handheld, Manual focus, ISO 200, Shutter 200, f/16, pop-up flash (deffused with a couple of layers of kitchen towel held in place with an elastic band)

This is cropped to about 120%, I may have taken it too far?

[DaveW]

Seems OK to me Phil. The kitchen towel or paper handkerchief diffuser dates way back before things like these flash diffusers were marketed and is probably just as good:-

http://search.ebay.co.uk/search/search. ... age=search

My trouble with using the pop-up flash is I am using a much longer and bulkier lens than you and that gets in the way of on camera flash. I do have a twin flash bracket and twin Nikon SB600 flash guns when I get around to setting them up to use the pop-up flash in Commander Mode with iTTL flash metering.

A very good and well lit image by the way.

DaveW

[beetleman]

There is still a lot of detail showing for the crop size. I would not be able to tell it is a blue bottle from your picture though.

[Danny]

I'll go the other way and I think its too big a crop in all honesty Phil. Sometimes we get carried away wanting higher ratios (me included) and sometimes the FINE details get lost. IMO anyway. Generally its around the eye details where it loses it. Nice work though and keep them coming.

Danny.

[rjlittlefield]

Depends on what you're after, Phil. This crop is clearly fuzzy. On the other hand, there's a lot of emotional impact in seeing the fly's head so big. Empty magnification is not necessarily a bad thing if you're making a billboard!

It might be an interesting experiment to post out a lesser crop too -- say, the entire fly's body in the same pixel count -- and see how people react to each one.

--Rik

[PhilH]

It might be an interesting experiment to post out a lesser crop too -- say, the entire fly's body in the same pixel count --Rik

Your wish is my command

This is also a crop of the same image.

[Bruce Williams]

Aaaargh!!!!:evil: I lost my original reply by pressing the wrong b...king key!

Anyway...

I have to put up my hand as being guilty of overcropping on occasions. With this particular image I think there are arguments both ways.

In this instance almost all the interesting detail is in the head and thorax so the larger, tighter crop does make anatomical examination easier and it does bring out some of the very small detail lost in the whole fly pic. However I much prefer the whole fly pic compositionally as it does have a very alive "flyish" feel to it and IMO most of the important detail is still discernible with a bit of squinting

If there had been a bit more detail on the head and eyes I'd probably have opted for the tighter crop, but as it is....for me the whole fly image takes it by a whisker.

Bruce

[PhilH]

Hi Bruce, thanks for the reply.

The photography bug has well and truly got hold of me. The arty stuff has never really interested me (although I know what I like when I see it) but wildlife close-ups and wildlife in general is my passion.

I think my problem is, I am just itching to get in closer than equipment and funds will allow.
I agree with what your saying, I posted the crop purely for reactions.

[Danny]

One small step at a time Phil. We all get carried away at times. I would have only cropped an image about 3-4 times in 35 years, so I'm not a cropper (Is that a word ). Plenty of people say crop this, crop that, etc. Its just a habit of not cropping outside the box. I don't have a problem with anyones image that has been cropped I must say, just a personal preference I guess.

I would suggest you try different lenses, reversed, stacked, tubes, etc and just enjoy shooting macro. Don't worry about ratio so much. Only IMO.

All the best Phil, keep shooting and posting mate.

Danny.