Cicada on olive tree

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:34 pm

Hi all! I'm back from my summer vacation with lot of fresh images.

Handheld, full frame.
A red ocelli between the eyes?

Model Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL
Date/time original 29.07.2007 10:04:55
Shutter speed value 1/200 s
Aperture value f/4
ISO speed ratings ISO 200
Focal length 100 mm

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:45 pm

Nikola, welcome back! I had wondered about your absence, just yesterday.

That sure does look like one bright ocellus. I'd expect there were three total, but no reason why they would all have to be visible.

I like the mix of colors, sharpness of the subject, and overall composition.

I am a little bothered by the bokeh of the background -- many of the edges are sharp even though the body of the objects is very OOF. This might be one of those images that can be improved by further blurring the background.

--Rik

Mike B in OKlahoma · Post by **Mike B in OKlahoma** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:57 pm

Good approach to this guy. Fill flash might have brightened up the cicada a little bit, though it might have risked getting glare off his wings.

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:26 pm

Well I dunno, I think it looks pretty good there Nikola.

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 3:17 am

Thanks guys.

In spite of relatively big aperture (f/4) the background is very expressed because of backlight and/or not so far olive leaves. But I still like it as it is.

salden · Post by **salden** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 3:22 am

Welcome back Nikola, you were missed. Hope your vacation turned out as planned.

Nice image, but I do agree with Rik on the background. It does have a nice "soft" look to it, but since the subject has patterns of its own, there is a bit of a conflict between the two.

beetleman · Post by **beetleman** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 6:29 am

I hope you took a lot of pictures to show us for the whole winter

I was also wondering where you had wondered off to.

OK, so where did you vacation ?

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 1:24 am

Thanks Sue and Doug.

Vacation turned out well (on my little isle). Can not complain except for dryness. It was raining only once in four weeks (not better before vacation). Even didn't cover the surface. Not good conditions for finding green shrubs with bunch of bugs.
So I have a lot of photographs but not of many different kinds. I'm affraid I'll bother you with few bugs in many different poses.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:14 pm

Nikola,

the background is very expressed because of backlight and/or not so far olive leaves. But I still like it as it is.

Actually I think it's not the backlight or the distance. Some lenses just natually create hard-edged blurs. Ironically it's the "best" lenses -- the ones with least aberrations -- that often have the hardest edges around OOF objects. I now have several such lenses, and I have gotten more and more sensitive to the issue. In http://www.photomacrography1.net/forum/ ... php?t=4989, compare first and last images.

The effect I'm trying to describe is to additionally blur the background only enough to remove the hard edges. In the image that you posted, Photoshop's gaussian blur filter, width = 2 pixels works pretty well. Two layers, with mask to expose sharp subject against gb2'd background.

Reposting by your kind permission, here is the result.

--Rik

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:53 pm

Thanks Rik.

I was scrolling the page up and down many times... and honestly speaking I wouldn't see any difference if I haven't been warned.

Must be my attention is of different kind.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:19 pm

MacroLuv wrote:I was scrolling the page up and down many times... and honestly speaking I wouldn't see any difference if I haven't been warned.
Must be my attention is of different kind.

Easy to believe -- different people are sensitive to different things.

But scrolling between one image and another is never a good way to see differences, because your eyes & memory get confused by all the changes in between.

Much better is to have them side by side so that all you need to do is move your eyes. Best of all is to layer the two images so that you can flash back and forth between them without even moving your eyes. I usually use Photoshop for this. It can also be done just with two browser windows or tabbed panes, but that takes more fiddling around to get the two images properly aligned.

--Rik

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:39 pm

Your argument about scrolling sounds very reasonable Rik.

But just before, I was scrolling your example ( http://www.photomacrography1.net/forum/ ... php?t=4989 ). I found significant differences between two images and scrolling didn't disturb my attention.

I think the key is - "significant".