Ranatra - Large to medium (body length 27-42mm, excluding 50mm long breathing siphon). This one was about 4 1/2 inches in length.
This image is a great improvement I think?? Thanks Ed!!
I thought I would try something different...redone
Moderators: Chris S., Pau, Beatsy, rjlittlefield, ChrisR
I thought I would try something different...redone
...a stick water scorpion. C&C wanted please.
Ranatra - Large to medium (body length 27-42mm, excluding 50mm long breathing siphon). This one was about 4 1/2 inches in length.
This image is a great improvement I think?? Thanks Ed!!
Ranatra - Large to medium (body length 27-42mm, excluding 50mm long breathing siphon). This one was about 4 1/2 inches in length.
This image is a great improvement I think?? Thanks Ed!!
Last edited by JoanYoung on Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joan Young
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 24434
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
These are interesting critters. Sounds like you found yourself a big one!
This shot is under water, I presume? Always challenging.
It looks like most of the image has glare from the surface. Often a polarizer will help reduce that, though it's rare that you can get rid of it entirely. If you can control the surroundings, it's very helpful to set up something big and dark for the water to reflect, while the light comes in from some other angle that will not reflect off the surface into the camera. If you can avoid shooting perpendicular to the water, then even on-camera flash may work well.
If you're really into hardcore technology solutions, there's a trick with polarizers on both the lens and the flash, crossed so as to almost completely kill direct reflections. I've only used that once or twice, but it got me a shot of some waterlice that would have been completely impossible otherwise. There's some discussion of that technique in the forum archives, here and here . Wil Hershberger used to have a good article posted at http://www.naturescapes.net/042004/wh0404.htm , but the whole naturescapes site seems to be offline right now.
I've never had much luck cleaning up glare in post-processing. It's tempting to think "oh, I'll just subtract that out", but the stuff is always so uneven that what works in one area is disastrous in another. Much better to avoid the glare in the first place.
Hope this is helpful. Shooting past that water surface is just tough!
--Rik
This shot is under water, I presume? Always challenging.
It looks like most of the image has glare from the surface. Often a polarizer will help reduce that, though it's rare that you can get rid of it entirely. If you can control the surroundings, it's very helpful to set up something big and dark for the water to reflect, while the light comes in from some other angle that will not reflect off the surface into the camera. If you can avoid shooting perpendicular to the water, then even on-camera flash may work well.
If you're really into hardcore technology solutions, there's a trick with polarizers on both the lens and the flash, crossed so as to almost completely kill direct reflections. I've only used that once or twice, but it got me a shot of some waterlice that would have been completely impossible otherwise. There's some discussion of that technique in the forum archives, here and here . Wil Hershberger used to have a good article posted at http://www.naturescapes.net/042004/wh0404.htm , but the whole naturescapes site seems to be offline right now.
I've never had much luck cleaning up glare in post-processing. It's tempting to think "oh, I'll just subtract that out", but the stuff is always so uneven that what works in one area is disastrous in another. Much better to avoid the glare in the first place.
Hope this is helpful. Shooting past that water surface is just tough!
--Rik
Thanks Rik, this is all great information plus the links.
This water scorpion was on the top step of a dirty swiming pool. I was sitting with my feet in the water taking it from a few inches above the water surface, angled straight down.
I am using a little point and shoot Rik, so, although I have many filters, I cannot put them on this camera and as it is a built in flash (which I almost never use), I would have a problem putting any kind of diffuser over it. But I think Santa may be bringing me a 400D, so I am grateful for the help.
This water scorpion was on the top step of a dirty swiming pool. I was sitting with my feet in the water taking it from a few inches above the water surface, angled straight down.
I am using a little point and shoot Rik, so, although I have many filters, I cannot put them on this camera and as it is a built in flash (which I almost never use), I would have a problem putting any kind of diffuser over it. But I think Santa may be bringing me a 400D, so I am grateful for the help.
Joan Young
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 24434
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Joan, I was afraid the situation was something like that. Not much I can think of that would help, unless perchance you have a friend with a big black cape who can hold it over both you and the bug to provide a black reflection. Even that's not going to do much for the murky water.
That sounds like great news about Santa. Just be sure you're on best behavior for the next week or two...
--Rik
PS. I see that the naturescapes site is back online. Just a short-term glitch I guess -- happens to our forum from time to time too.
That sounds like great news about Santa. Just be sure you're on best behavior for the next week or two...
--Rik
PS. I see that the naturescapes site is back online. Just a short-term glitch I guess -- happens to our forum from time to time too.
I did get onto naturescapes earlier but forgot to tell you it was back on line...sorry. 
Thanks Rik, I will remember to take my big unbrella with me next time.
Me be good?.....oh come now, don't spoil all my fun!! But I guess I had better be, just for Santa!! To tell the truth, I don't know if I want the 400D, I think the 350D would suite me more??? I will see..... 
Thanks Rik, I will remember to take my big unbrella with me next time.
Me be good?.....oh come now, don't spoil all my fun!!
But I guess I had better be, just for Santa!! To tell the truth, I don't know if I want the 400D, I think the 350D would suite me more??? I will see..... Joan Young
Joan wrote:
Oh, as for the "water scorpion," have you ever seen them feed? Excellent mosquitoe control they are. Not a bad image there by the way but you really chose a difficult subject being as it was on or in the water but you did good just the same I think.
The 350D is a nice camera but it and the 400D are almost the same, except the 400D has more pixels. I would opt for the 400D if you can swing it plus it has a larger preview screen, which you would appreciate after having used the smaller one on the 350D. By the way, get yourself some LCD protectors too. You know the little thin self adhesive plastic sheets. They do not harm your LCD screen and they offer protection against scratches and other things that may mar or harm your LCD display. They don't cost but a few dollars and worth every penny in the long run.To tell the truth, I don't know if I want the 400D, I think the 350D would suite me more??? I will see.....
Oh, as for the "water scorpion," have you ever seen them feed? Excellent mosquitoe control they are. Not a bad image there by the way but you really chose a difficult subject being as it was on or in the water but you did good just the same I think.
The only thing that is stopping me getting the 400Dat this moment is that you cannot use the screen to see the image you are taking, only for reviewing. Thanks for the advice of the protectors.
Water scorpion: it was about 4 inches under the water, but I thought I would try it and see how it came out. This was one of the biggest ones I have seen. I will take Rik's advice and use some kind of device to stop the glare on the water next time.
Thanks for commenting.
Water scorpion: it was about 4 inches under the water, but I thought I would try it and see how it came out. This was one of the biggest ones I have seen. I will take Rik's advice and use some kind of device to stop the glare on the water next time.
Thanks for commenting.
Joan Young
If you have Photoshop, try using one of the "Paint with Light" actions from http://www.atncentral.com. They are actually just dodge and burn actions that can sometimes remove haze and surface glare.
Good shot on a very difficult subject. I have taken my polarizer and held it up to my eye in the line of my intended shot and turned it to see whether it would help not. If it helped, I took note of the filter's orientation and carefully taped it to my camera lens with GAFFER'S tape. (It peels of easy and leaves not adhesive residue.)
Hope Santa brings the 400D though.
Sorry for overlooking this post previously.
Irwin
Hope Santa brings the 400D though.
Sorry for overlooking this post previously.
Irwin
Rik, I usually use a polarizer when I shoot flowers, if I can get away with it. Often, a polarizer used to cut glare from the highly reflective petals (and often leaves) has allowed me to increase the surface detail of my flowers, increase saturation and avoid the sheets of hotspot caused by glare. The use of cross polarized light sound fascinating. Thanks for the links.rjlittlefield wrote:These are interesting critters. Sounds like you found yourself a big one!
This shot is under water, I presume? Always challenging.
It looks like most of the image has glare from the surface. Often a polarizer will help reduce that, though it's rare that you can get rid of it entirely. If you can control the surroundings, it's very helpful to set up something big and dark for the water to reflect, while the light comes in from some other angle that will not reflect off the surface into the camera. If you can avoid shooting perpendicular to the water, then even on-camera flash may work well.
If you're really into hardcore technology solutions, there's a trick with polarizers on both the lens and the flash, crossed so as to almost completely kill direct reflections. I've only used that once or twice, but it got me a shot of some waterlice that would have been completely impossible otherwise. There's some discussion of that technique in the forum archives, here and here . Wil Hershberger used to have a good article posted at http://www.naturescapes.net/042004/wh0404.htm , but the whole naturescapes site seems to be offline right now.
I've never had much luck cleaning up glare in post-processing. It's tempting to think "oh, I'll just subtract that out", but the stuff is always so uneven that what works in one area is disastrous in another. Much better to avoid the glare in the first place.
Hope this is helpful. Shooting past that water surface is just tough!
--Rik
Irwin
Irwin
But now, reading the advice given here, I can see how polarizer's etc can be of help as the glare on leaves is something which has always bothered me. Looking at the comparison between pictures taken with and without them makes me see that there is a great different, and makes the pics more acceptable to my eye.
Thanks for the great advice Rik, Irwin....I guess I should dig out these filters and see if they will fit on the 400D. I have various adaptor rings too and should find something which fits.
When I started doing some photography many years ago, I was told that "you must have this....you must have that" by other photographers, and so spent a fortune on things like filters, light meters, tripods etc. I discovered that most of this is completely unnecessary and ended up using none of the equipment I bought.Often, a polarizer used to cut glare from the highly reflective petals (and often leaves) has allowed me to increase the surface detail of my flowers, increase saturation and avoid the sheets of hotspot caused by glare.
But now, reading the advice given here, I can see how polarizer's etc can be of help as the glare on leaves is something which has always bothered me. Looking at the comparison between pictures taken with and without them makes me see that there is a great different, and makes the pics more acceptable to my eye.
Thanks for the great advice Rik, Irwin....I guess I should dig out these filters and see if they will fit on the 400D. I have various adaptor rings too and should find something which fits.
No problem Irwin....it happens to all of us. Thanks for the lovely comment.Sorry for overlooking this post previously.
Joan Young