Highkey

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

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Raul G
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Location: MEXICO CITY
Contact:

Highkey

Post by Raul G »

Just an unidentified bug from the garden.
D2X, 105mm + 2x, 125x, reflected light (flash)

Image

Gordon C. Snelling
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 3:13 pm
Location: California

Post by Gordon C. Snelling »

Striped cucumber beetle.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 22384
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Interesting picture.

What technique?

All the shadows are separated from their legs, so my first thought was that the beetle is on glass over paper. But then I still have trouble making sense of the details. Some of the shadows are below-left, some are above-right, some are straight-right, all of these directions with respect to the leg or antenna that is (presumably) casting the shadow. Bright reflections on the head and tail suggest two light sources, one in front of the beetle and one behind. But none of the shadows are doubled. So now I'm wondering if maybe the shadows were added by hand for artistic effect.

The picture is very pretty :D, but confusing too. :?

What's the explanation?

--Rik

Raul G
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Location: MEXICO CITY
Contact:

you've got me

Post by Raul G »

Hi Rik

It is in fact a computer generated shadow. :roll: It is an interesting issue. Do you think we should picture nature as it is, or should we use all of our resources to get what we want?

Raul G
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Location: MEXICO CITY
Contact:

TNX

Post by Raul G »

TNX for the ID Gordon. You have a very cool site.

Gordon C. Snelling
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 3:13 pm
Location: California

Post by Gordon C. Snelling »

Thanks you, glad to help. I am glad you like the site, it/they are works in progress, alaas with the occasional glitch as well.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 22384
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Re: you've got me

Post by rjlittlefield »

Caronte wrote:It is an interesting issue. Do you think we should picture nature as it is, or should we use all of our resources to get what we want?
Yes, yes, and absolutely! :)

You may have noticed that I have a great fondness for stacking, which produces images that no lens could ever project. I sharpen mercilously, especially when working near diffraction limits. I stretch histograms and warp curves to get the most dynamic range, I blur backgrounds to improve their appearance, and I'm not above manually retouching backgrounds and even subjects to eliminate confusing and distracting elements.

On the other hand, I try to make sure that all these efforts simplify or at least do not complicate the task of someone trying to make sense of the image.

The Posting Guidelines are necessarily a bit ambiguous about this issue:
Digital enhancement of an image is allowed. Common enhancements such as contrast control, color corrections, cropping/resizing, noise reduction, and routine sharpening can be done without comment. However, any enhancements that alter the "naturalness" of the subject must be declared in the image post. Any type of "stacking" or image compositing should be noted; so should extreme or unusual amounts of cropping, sharpening, etc.
If I may be permitted the pun, adding "shadows" is in a gray area. :roll: I can easily imagine different people disagreeing about whether this is a "common" enhancement, or whether it "alters the 'naturalness' of the subject". Personally, I would prefer the enhancement had been mentioned as such.

It is a lovely image. :D

--Rik

Raul G
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Location: MEXICO CITY
Contact:

naturalness SEMANTICS

Post by Raul G »

Hi Rik,
I am glad about your comments on the picture, thank you.
I remember the guidelines, specially the part about naturalness. It is a tricky part. But I do believe that the only way to experience natural life is through your senses, everything else is a representation.
Let’s remember that a photography of a bug IS NOT a bug. Representation (outside of our minds) depends on our ability to create a physical way to express an idea.
So what is naturalness? Photography works in two dimensions only, stacking is a three-dimensional representation generated by the sum of two-dimensional sections, but time is out of the equation. Maybe in movies or in TV you can talk about naturalness, but not in photography; it is artificial from the beginning, because reality happens in time and photos don't. So, without original restrictions I believe you are free to do what ever you want, the catch, of course, is to be understood.
I also think that you should do whatever necessary to improve an image technically and aesthetically, because at the beginning the only thing a microscopist has is the notion of what an image might become.
--------------------------------

Stacking in time is also very interesting; I think live samples have a lot of naturalness :wink:

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic