Shots for Constructive Criticism

Launch Pad gets my vote, can't comment on the others as I'm having to look at the screen with Ctrl and + pressed 3 times.

I'm supposed to be submitting my French tax return now but I got distracted. I haven't read through everyone's comments as I'm supposed to be working so apologies for any repetition of points already answered.

There is nothing whatsoever I can see wrong with these shots. The only question is how they can be improved.

The second looks like a cropped version of the first to me. I don't think foreground objects jutting out at the viewer is a device that works that well in insect macro and I find the grass too dominant. I think this kind of close up on the face shot works better closer as the area of interest otherwise covers such a small proportion of the frame - the realm of reversing and more tubes and all kind of difficult things. The beauty comes from the scientific detail rather than the rlationship of subject and background.

Early lunch, I think we need gory detail through greater depth of field. The fly is another oof but significant foreground object, so not dissimilar to one.

Eye. I have noticed on my damselfly shots that the eye of the damselfly, in common with certain other insects, can look soft when it is in sharp focus. Hence I think that illusion has to be controlled by either going in closer still and extracting more detail from the eye or by providing a greater depth of field so more of the insect is in focus and the viewer therefore knows the eye is focus.

Clinging on - this is the most successful shot for me. Looks a bit 'glowy' somehow. It would be nice to have a more homogenous backdrop, the lighter coloured leaves at the bottom take away rather than add.

Damsel in distress. Not keen on the half insect or the leaves on the right. Good as a record of a wounded specimen.

Female Common Blue. Impressive sharpness on the upper half but plane of focus could be better, I think it really needs to be side on to be optimal. And higher in the frame, too much dead space in the composition.

Upside Down Bumblebee. I don't think upside down is particularly comfortable viewing. I think upside down works when there is a clearly right way up element, such as a flower. A bee eye can suffer as can the damselfly eye and again it is the shallow depth of field that is responsible for the enhanced illusion of softness.

Launchpad and yellow and green. I'm not a fan of that look. Foreground vegetation against a black background doesn't work for me with macro. For me flah in macro has to be difficult to identify.

OK, tax.

I'm not qualified to comment on macro photography as I have never done any. But that doesn't deter some theatre and opera critics or football commentators passing judgement on subjects they've never actually tried themselves.
So here goes.
I'm mightily impressed by first rate macro photos simply because they open up an unfamiliar world to me. In the very best of them the subject is critically sharp - for instance the eyes of a bee, the filigree wings of a dragon fly etc. And they all have wonderful bokeh.
Your pictures David are amazing for someone who is not a specialist in this subject. They are not however all critically sharp at the point where they should be.
This might be because of the restricted file size of images this site allows or because your camera was handheld.
I always imagined macro photographers had tripods welded to their cameras.
But the best ones in this set are really very good indeed. My favourites are Launch pad, Female Common Blue, Early Lunch, Yellow and Green.

David

PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout

Launch Pad is the one that hits the spot. Focus is right where it should be and the composition is spot on as well.

Unfortunately the rest fall short on sharpness and depth of field. The first shot, for example, has very little sharp in it and the major feature that catches our eye, the brightest bit, is an out of focus band of green.

However, you're getting in close and this is a difficult area to master. Like many areas of photography, it's not easy to master. The key issue is that I always ask myself if an image would stack up against others in, say, a book on nature. Sometimes, and only sometimes, I feel it does, but often it doesn't, so you're not alone in the quest for improvement.

I like Early Lunch Two and Launch Pad, both critically sharp and full of detail.

I've never done much macro so I'm always in awe of people who can manage it. I bought some tubes once and used them for a bit, but the dark image made focusing so hard I soon stopped.

Thanks to everyone who has commented, I do appreciate all of the input. It's funny that the one that everyone seems to like (launch pad) is the one that is my least favourite; I don't like the harsh 'flash' effect. It's much harder (and more satisfying to me) to do the natural light images, but in this country the light has to be exceptionally good to get away with a narrow aperture and sufficient shutter speed. Yesterday was dull and not conducive to this.

In the spirit of recent forum posts, here's a bit more information on why the images were shot this way and what I'm trying to achieve:

I wanted to experiment with narrow DOF on macro subjects, but I've ended up with neither one thing nor the other. For the next set, I will use a narrower aperture (F11 to F16) as I think the biggest single issue with these shots is the narrow DOF, although it was intentional. As for sharpness, I've checked all of these images again and they are all sharp on the insects' eyes, apart from the last one of the Yellow Dung Fly. There is no lack of sharpness in any of them, but I think the lack of DOF is making it appear they are not sharp.

This contrasts with images posted by Nass for example, where focus stacking is used on inanimate subjects, but this is not a route I want to go down as I'm only interested in photographing living, moving things in their natural environment.

I don't do this for money or for a profession, it is and always will be a hobby and enjoyment for me, so I'm not trying to produce images that will sell or win awards, I just want to be proud of what I do.

I think I need to aim for the sort of quality that Charlotte used to produce, as she also worked only with critters in their natural environment and used to produce some stunning images of these.

All the best to everyone, thanks for some good interaction on this post.

Best wishes
David

Be careful with your accusations. I don't like Launch Pad.

Ha Ha, your ironic humour has got me smiling Dr O! You clearly have good taste

Best wishes
David

I miss the DoF suggestions. I am not a fan of taking Micro images but I can't see anything I;d change - Maybe a few might be Focus challenged ( but you knew that) your work produces excellent images. Now it's a matter of what you like = unless your looking for a style, thats another set of problems. Q - how do you find these bugs?
TG

Actually that last question is a very good one - where do we find all these bugs?

CarolG on EPZ seems to find thousands of them, and she make superb images of them with a compact camera. She's worth looking up as it sets a very high benchmark for these type of images.

I'd like to add a few words

I'm full of admiration for what Nass does, the description he gave of what's involved sourcing an insect from the USA, reviving it and producing the shot shows dedication to the max. However much like David my interest in Macro has come from getting out to the local country park when possible and photographing the miniature world live so to speak.

So on to David's post.

The head on Damsels. Great angle, unlike others I'm not so bothered about the lack of DoF simply because at that angle it would have been impossible to achieve on a live damsel even with flash. I tend to shoot F13-16 and maybe that would have got the front wing edges in, however I'm almost certain I'd not have got close enough with my setup (which in itself is pretty meagre compared to some macro folks) without spooking it.

Spiders. I like the first better, maybe the second nailed the focus point a little more but the first is a more attractive angle. Jealous too as I've not managed to get one of these yet.

Remainder of the Damsels. I find these come out better with my 55-300 than with my macro lens. I think you have a DA*300 David? with the K3 I think that would be a better combo for natural light shots of insects this size and up. These are all good tho. The last one, even tho it's not as taken I'd try a crop and rotate until the body is horizontal to see how it looks.

The Bee. I have a real struggle with Bees so kudos for catching it still. I've just discovered the joy of Adjustment brushes in Camera raw, maybe a brush to bring the eye up would improve this a lot.

Launch Pad. I do like it for the fact that it's a great angle and composition that gives the run of the mill fly some real interest, I can understand why you feel it doesn't fit with what you were trying to achieve that day.

Last one doesn't do much for me. I'd call it a record shot (my HD is full of much worse than that hehe)

My 2X TC is as good as useless for what it was intended for so I think I'll look at how to get the glass out as I don't own any tubes, good tip

HTH

Kind regards Pete A

p.s. not sure on the etiquette of posting my own images in to this thread to make for discussion / comparrison

I find them in my garden John! We have quite a large garden and I've purposefully left an area to grow semi wild, with as many grasses and wild flowers as I can get to grow there. It attracts all sorts of things, some of which I've not photographed yet.

Regards
David

Any square metre of anything outside my front door is chocafull of them, often ones that enjoy my blood.

We seem to have got some badgers in at the moment too, judging from the incredible destruction in the meadow.

I have looked through them. I agree that it is an excellent use of a compact camera. The choice of subject and the compositions are excellent. The depth of field of the small sensor works in favour of the subject. However I find it works against the overall scene with many of the backgrounds too detailed and distracting. Strong contrast, often overly so, is also a feature of these shots to my eye. Many of the shots show some crude looking sharpening too with accompanying artifacts, although maybe this is due to resizing.

I don't want to take anything away from that set of images, but superb and a very high benchmark I really don't see. It is rather difficult to compare the output of the small sensor camera to that of the larger sensor, the resulting images being quite different. However I do think we should set our benchmark a lot higher than images such as those. Let us consider those the base level upon which to build.

I have been a miserable git recently, and still have my moments. I'm hardly enthused by anything. Even david's thread about "What's happened....." didn't get me going, but I am trying to snap out of it.

Fortunately, this thread has provided me with a bit of a kick. One of the things I have carried on doing is take macros. i decided it was about time I put up some shots for c&c, but thought it only fair that I had a go at David's shots first, then he can get me back!

So, here goes.......

I quite like Blue Eyes, though I would prefer a square crop and a central position, and I'm not keen on the grassy straggle, so I prefer the 2nd one.

The 2 Early lunches, for me, need more of the scene in focus to work. the 2nd one works better, but the fly needs to be in focus too.

I'm not keen on Eye. I took one very similar last year, and haven't bothered since. The body is out of focus and, probably, needs to be more out of focus for the viewer to just concentrate on the eye.

Clinging On would be good if the whole damselfly had been in focus, but the wings aren't.

Is Damsel in Distress the same fly as in the previous shots? I've never seen one in this state, so that's interesting in itself. But I prefer whole ones.

Female Common Blue is nearly excellent, but a side on shot really needs the whole fly in focus, and it goes out of focus as you go down the body.

The Bumble Bee's head is in darkness, and thus has lost detail. Pity. Strange behaviour!

I like Launch Pad from an alien-look perspective. But i don't think you've caught the fly's best side!

I don't like Yellow and Green. If you are going to do a head in focus shot then the head really needs to be nearest to the lens.

David, I'm pretty certain you posted these just to get comments going on the forum again, because I know you have done many far better shots than these!!