Chrysididae from Armenia 2019

Images of undisturbed subjects in their natural environment. All subject types.

Moderators: Chris S., Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR

Post Reply
AlxndrBrg
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 12:17 pm

Chrysididae from Armenia 2019

Post by AlxndrBrg »

Had a great trip to Armenia this summer, lots of chrysidid wasps and other insects. Gave me the opportunity to photograph live specimens of some species (and species groups/genera) which I dont think has ever been imaged live before. Haven't been shooting live specimens for a long time, so the unusable/usuable picture ratio is ridiculously high. But shoot enough crappy images and by the laws of statistics some are bound to accidentally turn out ok...

These should be the first live shots (at least to my knowledge) of a Pentachrysis sp., probably P. seminigra.

Females:
Image

Image

Image

Image

Males:
Image

Image

Harald
Posts: 601
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 10:33 am
Location: Steinberg, Norway
Contact:

Post by Harald »

Hi AlxndrBrg,

Wow!
What can I say? These are just great :D
Love them!

Tanks for the inspiration and sharing :)
Kind Regards
Harald

Lier Fotoklubb / NSFF
AFIAP / CPS
BGF / GMV
http://www.500px.com/blender11

dolmadis
Posts: 691
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:51 pm
Location: UK

Post by dolmadis »

Agree,many congratulations.

What kit settings etc., did you use?

Thanks


John

AlxndrBrg
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 12:17 pm

Post by AlxndrBrg »

Thank you both!
dolmadis wrote: What kit settings etc., did you use?
Canon 6D with a MP-E 65 at around f:10, and a Meike Mk300 flash with a "John Hallmén"-pattern ice cream box diffuser
Edit: actually, I mostly used this kind of diffuser: http://makrofokus.se/blogg/2015/1/24/lampdiffusorn.html
Last edited by AlxndrBrg on Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:50 am, edited 2 times in total.

Lou Jost
Posts: 4331
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

These are beautiful. If I could make some constructive criticism, though, the eyes are out of focus in nearly every one. It looks like you just barely missed getting them in focus. The eye shaprness is psychologically important; the unsharp eye gives an impression of overall unsharpness even though much of the body is perfectly sharp. If you could ensure that the eye facing the viewer were sharp (and I know this can be very hard in the field with moving bugs), the pictures would look better.

It might even be worth using a slightly smaller aperture, trading off a bit of resolution for added depth of field, if it proves too difficult to get the eye in focus with your current settings.

hayath
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Bangalore, India

Post by hayath »

Rich color and detail!
Loved #2

AlxndrBrg
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 12:17 pm

Post by AlxndrBrg »

hayath wrote:Rich color and detail!
Loved #2
Thanks!
Lou Jost wrote:These are beautiful. If I could make some constructive criticism, though, the eyes are out of focus in nearly every one. It looks like you just barely missed getting them in focus. The eye shaprness is psychologically important; the unsharp eye gives an impression of overall unsharpness even though much of the body is perfectly sharp. If you could ensure that the eye facing the viewer were sharp (and I know this can be very hard in the field with moving bugs), the pictures would look better.

It might even be worth using a slightly smaller aperture, trading off a bit of resolution for added depth of field, if it proves too difficult to get the eye in focus with your current settings.
Thanks for your feedback, I agree totally! I tried doing hand held stacks to improve the depth of focus, turns out it's really really hard, especially with moving critters. In hindsight I should have used a lower magnification and perhaps a bit higher f:stop (although I think I was well into diffraction-land already), to get better focus depth and trade it off with some image cropping. As it is now I have choose if I want the eye closest to the camera to be sharp and nothing else, or the far eye and some of the body, so I tend to chose the latter.
I also want to blame the image compression on this site a little bit ;) The ommatidia of the compound eyes are very small, it's a bit better on flickr when viewed at higher resolutions; https://www.flickr.com/photos/69669232@ ... 1981630578
Here are 3 shots picked specifically for having sharp eyes, the second one I kinda like, maybe should have chosen that above one of the original shots?
Image

Image

Image

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8521
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

Several of your images have come out around 55kBytes - the forum limit it 300kB which is usually enough.
DON'T let the forum software shrink the image, reduce yours to 1024 or less first, so the size is just under 300kB. That should be OK - apart from the pixel number of course!
Chris R

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8521
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

Image

Well firefox has started lieing to me - the "image info" is misreporting.
However, when I download your images I get them at about 90kB, not 55-60 whic it reports. The one I uploaded is about 150kb. It looks only very marignally better, if you expand it. (It's 999 square - just testing if the forum s/w was doing something at 1000)
Chris R

MarkSturtevant
Posts: 796
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 6:52 pm
Location: Michigan, U.S.A.

Post by MarkSturtevant »

Excellent picture of beautiful insects. I know how hard these are. Rare is the time to see one sitting still for even a moment.
Mark Sturtevant
Dept. of Still Waters

MarkSturtevant
Posts: 796
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 6:52 pm
Location: Michigan, U.S.A.

Post by MarkSturtevant »

Some years ago I tried the John Hallman diffuser. It works well, but I wish mine had thinner plastic.
Mark Sturtevant
Dept. of Still Waters

Post Reply