1.

2.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
If I had to guess I would say maybe ~1cm, maybe a small bit larger. I just looked at the settings and I was at ISO 400, 1/200, and f/11. I am using the MT-24EX with a pretty large concave diffuser. Here's a couple photos (ignore the extender and GoPro, two experiments which I ditchedzzffnn wrote:Very nice! Thank you for sharing.
Do you happen to remember the spider's size (or images' on-sensor magnification), and the F stop used there? It looks like you used twin flash through a diffusion collar?
I was a proponent of convex diffusion for a while because I thought it looked softer. I went to the dark side and now will only use concave. The circular hood around the lens makes "pupils" on shiny eyes, an added benefit. I was noticing that the pupils were popular among some of the larger macro pages.zzffnn wrote:^ Thank you!
So many macro people are using similar flash/diffusion approach and F stop/shutter speeds.
I have not seen such a pretty spider in Houston/Texas, though I did not try very hard. When/where was it photographed? I hope I can find one in the future.
Hhmm... I'm not sure that either "popular" or "benefit" are the right words. The fake pupils are certainly very common. But I think that's largely explained by how often they arise by accident, assisted by people's amused tolerance for misleading anthropomorphisms. There definitely are other approaches. If you look, for example, at Thomas Shahan's work in National Geographic, you'll find lots of reflections but none that look like pupils. To my personal tastes, that's a much better rendition.themagicdrainpipe wrote:The circular hood around the lens makes "pupils" on shiny eyes, an added benefit. I was noticing that the pupils were popular among some of the larger macro pages.