Exploration

[KrisCarnmarker]

Saw this tiny little bug exploring the flower.

Critique would be welcome. Is there too much negative space? Chopped off flower no good?

Anybody know what kind of beetle it is? It is about 2-3mm in length.

 

[Jiva Sztraka]

Not that I have much experience in the field, but I think this picture stands out a lot more than most other similar situations.

I think you've captured it very well. Only half the flower showing in combination with its unique shaping... makes you think. Not to mention the colours.

I like it!
Of course, as with 99% of pictures... it'd be nice to have just *tiny* bit more depth of field, but thats just part of macro photography I guess.

Great work.

As for the insect... can't help you there. Looks like some type of nympth, although its hard to tell unless a few more pictures are provided. I'm sure someone else will know.

 

[KrisCarnmarker]

Thanks Jiva. Yes, more DOF would be nice. That particular one was 125s @ f/13 so I was getting close to the limits already.

Regarding the insect, I do have one more image:

 

[Mary Bull]

Kris, it's a lovely photo.

I don't recognize the beetle--only can confirm for sure that it looks like a beetle to me.

And that it's not a ladybug. Which you already knew, of course.

The colors are so soft and appealing on the flower, and so sharp on the carapace of the beetle. The picture is a pleasure to look at.

Mary

 

[Sean DeMerchant]

You Asked For It )

Saw this tiny little bug exploring the flower.

Critique would be welcome. Is there too much negative space? Chopped off flower no good?

Hi Kris,

Critically (note, this is aimed to be constructive but I will be critical), both shots scream flash and are a bit dark. The Image->Adjustments->Shadow/Highlight in PS with a radius of zero can help with that. Please note I shoot 98% of my bug shots with flash and I watch the background closely.

Consider the following contrast (lower magnification and shot with bright sunlight as fill) which was also shot with flash.

A digger bee, Eucerini sp., on a gum plant, Grindelia integrifolia

This is another example which was shot after sunset (i.e., during dusk) using a Lumiquest Softbox on a 550 EX which provides far more diffusion than straight flash and provides near wrap around light like with its 5x7 inch size for bugs like huge softbox would for a human (for hundreds of USD less).

Female Digger Wasp

Please note both shots are full frame uncropped images.
​

I might suggest exploring cropping the first shot to balance the negative space with the critters body language (lose some the right side). The second shot I would go for a square crop losing the flash black at left as that negative space is very strong and draws the eyes. Or perhaps you might explore a 4x6 crop with the pistils and stamens of the the blossom as the upper left corner and the exploring critter at lower right.

I will admit I without question favor using flash for macro work over a tripod, but I do not care for the flash-black background look. I want the light to look closer to surreal than real and diffusion helps a lot with that.

As to the flowers, ignore them, the critter is your subject, the flower is the landscape. I have never seen people asking if cropping off part of a tree or stream in a shot of a bear is an issue so I would suggest following that lead. This is a shot of one of the beautiful little ones and not a shot of a flower.

As to technique, I would seriously suggest not using the 100/2.8 USM macro at apertures smaller than f/10 for creatures that do not fill the frame at 1:1 and to never take it past f/14 on an 8 MP 1.6 crop due to diffraction induced blur unless you absolutely must have more DoF.

Anybody know what kind of beetle it is? It is about 2-3mm in length.

If you know when and where, then sign up at http://bugguide.net/node/view/6/bgimage and post a request. There is no guarantee of an answer, but when someone knows and participates I have found it very helpful (i.e., the lack a bumble bee guru).

all the best,

Sean )

 

[Sean DeMerchant]

As to technique, I would seriously suggest not using the 100/2.8 USM macro at apertures smaller than f/10 for creatures that do not fill the frame at 1:1 and to never take it past f/14 on an 8 MP 1.6 crop due to diffraction induced blur unless you absolutely must have more DoF.

p.s.,

Please let me know if you want to see examples as I have a nice set illustrating diffraction induced blur of a the facets of a dragonfly's eye.

enjoy,

Sean

 

[KrisCarnmarker]

Thanks Mary for your comment and Sean for your valued criticism. If I may respond to them.

The reason I asked about the negative space on the first picture is that I actually feel like you do about it. On the other hand, my mother, who has worked at magazines and ad agencies for over 30 years had a totally different opinion. She has huge experience with stock photos and said not to change a thing, as it leaves a great space for text. Of course, that's a whole other purpose and images for stock photo should be considered with a different eye. For the second image, an almost square crop is probably better.

As for the dark background and the flash look. First of all, I'm not sure I really mind a dark background, as long as it doesn't get too dark (as in the second picture). Macro is all about compromises. I've used a regular flash with and without softboxes, reflectors, etc. and I could never get the look I really wanted. I don't like the shadows a single flash produces, as evidenced by your first example. A softbox helps a lot though. I finally broke down and bought the MT24-EX macro flash, and I find it works great.

Dark backgrounds are difficult to avoid, unless you have strong sunlight, or a close background. The following image was taken with a 580, diffusor and a reflector. The background was around 30 meters again, but thanks to strong sunlight it comes out quite bright.

Contrast this image with the second one I posted, which was in heavy shade, but the background was only 30-50 cm away. Diffusion was not used, and probably would have helped a bit.

Currently I am looking for some way to be able to use the 580 as a slave to the MT24 to fill in the background. It would require some sort of stand/tripod that is light and quick to set up.

Regarding the aperture and the diffraction limit. I am very aware of this problem and rarely go beyond f/14. It has happened, but only when I desperately need the DOF, like you said. What I don't understand is your statement about not going beyond f/10 unless the subject fills the frame. Care to explain that?

BTW, the shots I've shown here are also uncropped.

 

[KrisCarnmarker]

Oh, forgot. Thanks for the link on the bug identification site. Unfortunately, it seems it is for the US and Canada only.

 

[Don Lashier]

Thanks Jiva. Yes, more DOF would be nice. That particular one was 125s @ f/13 so I was getting close to the limits already.

Very nice shots Kris. One of the things I loved about P/S macro was the high DOF. I haven't checked the exif but this shot was probably around f/5.6 or f/8. Prints beautiful at 8x10.

- DL

 

[Sean DeMerchant]

The reason I asked about the negative space on the first picture is that I actually feel like you do about it. On the other hand, my mother, who has worked at magazines and ad agencies for over 30 years had a totally different opinion. She has huge experience with stock photos and said not to change a thing, as it leaves a great space for text. Of course, that's a whole other purpose and images for stock photo should be considered with a different eye.

For stock, I would agree to leave it wider. If you want to sell prints, then I would crop it.

As for the dark background and the flash look. First of all, I'm not sure I really mind a dark background, as long as it doesn't get too dark (as in the second picture). Macro is all about compromises.

I would take that one step further, crafting a photograph is all about compromises. Whether it is lighting, less DoF for a blurry subject but more pleasing defocus, taking a less flattering angle of the subject to simplify the background, and etcetera. One works with what one has, not what one wants the world to be.

I've used a regular flash with and without softboxes, reflectors, etc. and I could never get the look I really wanted. I don't like the shadows a single flash produces, as evidenced by your first example. A softbox helps a lot though. I finally broke down and bought the MT24-EX macro flash, and I find it works great.

That is on the list. But in general I am happy with the look of the small softbox with the flash mounted on the hotshoe as that little bit of diffusion gives lots of light and soft specular highlights on tiny subject.

Currently I am looking for some way to be able to use the 580 as a slave to the MT24 to fill in the background. It would require some sort of stand/tripod that is light and quick to set up.

I would recommend using a tripod in the field. You should be able to pick up a cold shoe to mount the 580 EX on which a quick release plate would screw into. I have broken enough umbrellas using light stands that I no longer trust light stands where there is any wind.

Regarding the aperture and the diffraction limit. I am very aware of this problem and rarely go beyond f/14. It has happened, but only when I desperately need the DOF, like you said. What I don't understand is your statement about not going beyond f/10 unless the subject fills the frame. Care to explain that?

With tiny subjects 5 mm or less in length I find that getting a sharper image shows more detail than more DoF yields so I pull back to f/10. Most lenses hit their peak sharpness at about f/8 and so with 100/2.8 I find f/10 to be a good compromise between detail and DoF for very tiny subjects that will never fill the frame at 1:1. I found f/10 via trial and error and I get more viable shots of very tiny subjects there than at f/14 which I again chose via trial and error for larger subjects like bees and wasps and see what gave the most consistent results. And hence I favor f/10 for truly tiny subjects.

enjoy,

Sean

 

[Sean DeMerchant]

Oh, forgot. Thanks for the link on the bug identification site. Unfortunately, it seems it is for the US and Canada only.

Sorry about that, I tend to only know resources for my region for practical reasons (they are the ones I use).

Does anyone have any other non-North American resource links they could share?

enjoy,

Sean