sluggish bumblebee

This fellow was very sluggish. It was cool, about 11C.

Later that evening he was walking on the path nearby and my SO's son
picked him up and petted him... then put him in the grass lest someone
step on him...

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9256748&size=lg
Sony a-900, flash, 1/250 f/11 ISO 200.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Alan Browne wrote in news:cp-
:

http://photo.net/photodb

Nice looking shot, though I think at f11 I'd have preferred a bit more DOF
which would be provided by a APS-C or 4/3rds camera. However, not having a
comparable shot from one of those, I don't know how their much lower pixel
count would have effected resolution.
I'd heard stories that professional macro shooters do things like putting
the insects in a freezer to slow them down and then "posing" them to their
liking before imaging them.

On 27-05-09 20:54, Rich wrote:
Alan wrote in news:cp-
:

http://photo.net/photodb

Nice looking shot, though I think at f11 I'd have preferred a bit more DOF
which would be provided by a APS-C or 4/3rds camera. However, not having a
comparable shot from one of those, I don't know how their much lower pixel
count would have effected resolution.

Thanks, but I don't think it's all that good. Just all I've managed
with insect macros.

I'd need to build a bracket to mount two strobes to the sides with large
diffusing areas. Then shoot at f/16. Even then, the DOF would not be
dramatic.

Or, I can simulate the APS-C by simply backing up a bit and cropping the
result. 24.6 Mpix is a lot to play with to end up with a 1 Mpix image
(as presented).

See Bret's recent "fly" on the rpe35mm group. Stacked DOF macro.
Fantastic detail.

I'd heard stories that professional macro shooters do things like putting
the insects in a freezer to slow them down and then "posing" them to their
liking before imaging them.

Yep. But not always.

I saw a program on french television a few weeks ago with video of
spiders doing their thing (basically: hunting, web spinning, eating and
fornicating) and the photography was ultra detailed and sharp. (There
is even a male relative of the black widow that ties down the legs of
the female before mating, kinky bugger. And they get away 4 times in 5
without the female getting them, too.)

"The" male black widow on the other hand offers himself to the female as
a post coital snack. Ah, love.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On Wed, 27 May 2009 19:54:03 -0500, Rich wrote:

Alan Browne wrote in news:cp-
:

http://photo.net/photodb

Nice looking shot, though I think at f11 I'd have preferred a bit more DOF
which would be provided by a APS-C or 4/3rds camera.

Why do you think image format is a factor helping determine depth of
field?

However, not having a
comparable shot from one of those, I don't know how their much lower pixel
count would have effected resolution.
I'd heard stories that professional macro shooters do things like putting
the insects in a freezer to slow them down and then "posing" them to their
liking before imaging them.



Eric Stevens

On 27-05-09 21:25, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2009 19:54:03 -0500, wrote:

Alan wrote in news:cp-
:

http://photo.net/photodb
Nice looking shot, though I think at f11 I'd have preferred a bit more DOF
which would be provided by a APS-C or 4/3rds camera.

Why do you think image format is a factor helping determine depth of
field?

Probably because APS-C "macros" are rarely at 1:1 but more like 1:5 or so.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

* Alan Browne wrote :
On 27-05-09 21:25, Eric Stevens wrote:
[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 6 lines snipped |=---]
Nice looking shot, though I think at f11 I'd have preferred a bit more DOF
which would be provided by a APS-C or 4/3rds camera.

Why do you think image format is a factor helping determine depth of
field?

Probably because APS-C "macros" are rarely at 1:1 but more like 1:5 or so.

First I've heard this, and can't figure out how the sensor size
would have anything at all with it. I did some testing a while
ago, and I'm sure that when I shot a ruler at 1:1 and the
divisions on the ruler scale matched the size of my sensor,
indicating true 1:1 lifesize.

--
Troy Piggins

Rich wrote:
Alan Browne wrote (redo from the second post):

This fellow was very sluggish. It was cool, about 11C.

Later that evening he was walking on the path nearby and my SO's son picked him up and petted him... then put him in the grass lest someone step on him...

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9256748&size=lg
Sony a-900, flash, 1/250 f/11 ISO 200.

Bumble bees around here are supposed to be unique in their ability to
forage in relatively cool weather, I see them in the evening before
sunset. 52F is pretty chilly though. Most bees will only be out & about
in the heat of the day. Bumble bees are also known to nap, I've seen
them curled up in a flower mid day doing siesta.


Nice looking shot, though I think at f11 I'd have preferred a bit more DOF
which would be provided by a APS-C or 4/3rds camera. However, not having a
comparable shot from one of those, I don't know how their much lower pixel
count would have effected resolution.
I'd heard stories that professional macro shooters do things like putting
the insects in a freezer to slow them down and then "posing" them to their
liking before imaging them.


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

[...]
I'd need to build a bracket to mount two strobes to the sides with large diffusing areas. Then shoot at f/16. Even then, the DOF
would not be dramatic.

This would produce lighting that is MUCH too soft, and it risks
unnatural double shadows. A single flash is already the equivalent
of a soft-box due to the relative sizes of the tiny subject and relatively
large flash head if that is placed at the end of the lens (using an adjustable
bracket rig and remote TTL cord), and the light is easily enough to
get any stop you want.

Or, I can simulate the APS-C by simply backing up a bit and cropping the result. 24.6 Mpix is a lot to play with to end up with a
1 Mpix image (as presented).

Um, something seems just wrong with this plan...;-)

See Bret's recent "fly" on the rpe35mm group. Stacked DOF macro. Fantastic detail.

If this is what I think it is, results are amazing (so long as the subject
doesn't move...;-).

I'd heard stories that professional macro shooters do things like putting
the insects in a freezer to slow them down and then "posing" them to their
liking before imaging them.

Yep. But not always.

Supposedly, one can "spot" this having been done, if one knows
insects well enough...

I saw a program on french television a few weeks ago with video of spiders doing their thing (basically: hunting, web spinning,
eating and fornicating) and the photography was ultra detailed and sharp. (There is even a male relative of the black widow that
ties down the legs of the female before mating, kinky bugger. And they get away 4 times in 5 without the female getting them,
too.)

"The" male black widow on the other hand offers himself to the female as a post coital snack. Ah, love.

8^)
Here is a TINY fly shot around 3X ("hand-held", with flash the SB-24
flash head mounted at the lens end, pointed down at the subject center),
using a standard Nikkor 200mm f4 + TC14 (TC200 + tube?) + an
achromat from a Sigma 90mm macro lens, at an effective aperture of
around f45, as I recall. It is hard to tell in this small image, but it is quite
sharp, with plenty of DOF. It is at -
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/w...z/bugs/b55.jpg
--DR

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

This fellow was very sluggish. It was cool, about 11C.

Later that evening he was walking on the path nearby and my SO's son
picked him up and petted him... then put him in the grass lest someone
step on him...

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9256748&size=lg
Sony a-900, flash, 1/250 f/11 ISO 200.



Very nice, sir. A tad more exposure, perhaps? I'm not seeing all the
detail in the shadows, is all. Of course, without some photoshop work, that
would result in blowing the light yellow stip on the beast's back. Or
perhaps my new monitor needs calibration. Sucker was so bright right out of
the box, I struggled to tame it down appropriately.

On 28-05-09 11:41, Matt Clara wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

This fellow was very sluggish. It was cool, about 11C.

Later that evening he was walking on the path nearby and my SO's son
picked him up and petted him... then put him in the grass lest someone
step on him...

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9256748&size=lg
Sony a-900, flash, 1/250 f/11 ISO 200.



Very nice, sir. A tad more exposure, perhaps? I'm not seeing all the
detail in the shadows, is all.

Agree. I was trying to get the yellow right. I used a top mounted
flash bent over 90 deg to the side (Sony flash allows this) bit it so so
much off axis that it doesn't light those dark areas well.

If it weren't in the shadow of the house I might has shot it w/o flash
for a more even illumination.

Of course, without some photoshop work,
that would result in blowing the light yellow stip on the beast's back.
Or perhaps my new monitor needs calibration. Sucker was so bright right
out of the box, I struggled to tame it down appropriately.

Try a Mac display. At lowest setting it takes about 6 months for your
eyes to be burned down enough to tolerate it.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.