Another yellow Crab Spider

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

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

jaharris1001
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:26 pm
Location: Deltona Florida

Another yellow Crab Spider

Post by jaharris1001 »

actually,, its the same fella that I photographed the day before, he was on the same flower. I recently aquired the Novoflex flash bracket, after being advised by Ken, I was giving it a go this weekend. So far, I really like it, its a well constructed piece, it gets the flash off the camera and closer to the subject at a better angle. I also added a Lumiquest Softbox on the end,, just gettin it dialed in. Thoughts ?
Thanks
Jim

Image
Jim

"I'm growing older,, but not up " Jimmy Buffett

MacroLuv
Posts: 1964
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:36 pm
Location: Croatia

Post by MacroLuv »

It looks very good in my opinion. :D
Nice spiky details on spider's legs. :wink:
The meaning of beauty is in sharing with others.

P.S.
Noticing of my "a" and "the" and other grammar
errors are welcome. :D

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23616
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Lighting looks good -- just enough soft shadows under the legs to give separation, and no intense glare spots from the flash.

The whole thing looks a little soft to me, though, and I'm not sure why that is. EXIF data in the image says Canon XTi with 105 mm at f/11, which should be around the lens's sweet spot. Does this image look sharp at the pixel level in the original image? Maybe some sharpness got lost in the resizing? I generally find that doing a bit of sharpening after resize is needed to restore the subjective appearance of sharpness. When I say "a bit", I mean something like Photoshop's unsharp mask, 35% at 0.7 pixels width.

You're the best person to judge, though, since you were there at the subject and you have the original image to work with. I'm just musing, nobody needs to listen. :D

--Rik

Ken Ramos
Posts: 7208
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:12 pm
Location: lat=35.4005&lon=-81.9841

Post by Ken Ramos »

Okay, lets pick on Jim :lol: The leading edges of the two foremost petals seem to be a little hot, could have been to close for the flash, maybe back down the power a little and I agree that it does look a little soft but other than that still a good image there Jim. By the way a tripod, maybe a bean bag or something else to steady the camera with something this small might be a good idea. Just the vibrations from pressing down on the shutter button can make something, especially this small, look soft. :D

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23616
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Nah, I think I'll jump to Jim's defense this time! :wink: :lol:

The white petals look just perfect to me, both visually on screen and when I fire up Photoshop's histogram to tell me about the actual RGB values. Even in the brightest areas of the petals, there's less than 20 pixels that hit 255 in even a single component.

The bright yellows, on the other hand, now those might be blown a bit. In the bright yellow stuff, there are several thousand pixels that are 253 or above in the red channel, and over 1000 at 255. A purist could argue that those are almost certainly blown. I'm not a purist, though, and I would argue that there's not a human alive who could actually tell the difference between slightly blown and not quite blown yellows that are this intense.

So I'm gonna go with "perfect" on exposure. :D

--Rik

jaharris1001
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:26 pm
Location: Deltona Florida

Post by jaharris1001 »

Thanks for the comments guys :wink: now that you mention it rj, it does look just a tad soft which I didnt notice before, I guess it was possible to lose a bit in resizing :) and as far as exposure, this was my first day out with the off camera Novoflex, somewhat of an experimentation day, still trying to dial in the right amount of flash while using a diffuser and off camera mount. A continuous learning curve :D Thanks again,,rj, thats pretty cool that you could recall that info or histogram and look at those statistics,, thanks again guys :wink:
Jim

"I'm growing older,, but not up " Jimmy Buffett

Ken Ramos
Posts: 7208
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:12 pm
Location: lat=35.4005&lon=-81.9841

Post by Ken Ramos »

Must be my monitor, NVIDIA stuff, I hate it. :? Anyway the yellows look fine to me :-k :D

jaharris1001
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:26 pm
Location: Deltona Florida

Post by jaharris1001 »

Ken Ramos wrote:Must be my monitor, NVIDIA stuff, I hate it. :? Anyway the yellows look fine to me :-k :D
:lol: Thanks Ken :D
Jim

"I'm growing older,, but not up " Jimmy Buffett

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

The eveness of lighting intensity on the spider and the flower suggest overhead lighting, as confirmed by the shadows. Thus, there is little or no fall-off from front to back of the subject. In my opinion, this is ideal lighting for many subjects.

Only the black background betrays that it is not a exposure in diffuse sunlight.

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic