Fangs for the memory

morgan · Post by **morgan** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:26 pm

This is of a cast skin from a juvenile Red Knee tarantula (Brachypelma smithi)
I was surprised to see just how much detail is left behind in the discarded shell.

16 images

beetleman · Post by **beetleman** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:18 pm

I`ll tell you one thing, they still look alive to me

and lethal. I am guessing but it looks like your lighting might have been too bright for the upper part of the fangs and through off the stacking software.

JoanYoung · Post by **JoanYoung** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:45 pm

Gosh Morgan, this is one mean lookig critter.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:42 am

morgan, this is great!

I'm used to seeing lots of detail preserved in cast-off stuff, but this is so big that it's just wonderfully detailed.

(I know, only 6.4 mm across the field -- sorry, I have odd standards

Thanks very much for the scale bar!

)

beetleman wrote:I am guessing but it looks like your lighting might have been too bright for the upper part of the fangs and through off the stacking software.

Doug, I'm missing this. Are you looking at the little bit of blur in the foremost areas of the fangs? Without more info, I would think the stack was maybe just a frame or two short of catching those areas in perfect focus. (Doesn't matter -- the photo is lovely anyway!)

--Rik

beetleman · Post by **beetleman** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:28 am

I was just thinking about the upper section of the fangs near the top center of the picture where it is sorta grayed out. The details on the orange hairs is amazing.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:53 am

Ah, "grayed out"... I'm not seeing anything odd in those areas -- looks to me like typical appearance of a light tent reflecting off a broad shiny area that doesn't have much surface detail. That's actually one of the cues I use for interpreting such areas. Of course I could always be interpreting it wrong.

Morgan, what was your lighting setup for this shot?

--Rik

morgan · Post by **morgan** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:32 pm

Thanks all.
When I first saw this photo I thought there should have been one or two more shots to improve the fore ground.

The lighting set up was two flashguns and the subject in a plastic 'tent' made from an ice cream tub, shown here.

Would I get better results using a material that is less glossy?

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:51 pm

Glossiness of the diffuser shouldn't make any difference.

Looking back at the fangs, what I'm pretty sure we're seeing is that the overall "gray" on the top-facing surface is reflection of the diffusing tent, while the bright white spots on the front surfaces is direct reflection of the strobe units.

If you wanted to get rid of the bright white spots (and I'm not sure that would be an improvement!), then you might try dropping a "veil" of Kleenex tissue or something similar over the front of the diffuser, with a hole in it just big enough to shoot through. The idea would be to keep the fangs from seeing the strobes directly.

I like the effect of having the diffuser extend backward over and behind the subject -- it gives reflections from horizontal surfaces that a front-only diffuser will leave dark.

--Rik