A couple of contrasting moths. Not as colourful as butterflies, but lovely creatures all the same (well, I think so...).

The first is a plume moth (don't know which) that spent the evening on the back of a garden seat. It even positioned itself so a head-on shot was possible. The second is a large yellow underwing, if I've read my moth book correctly (please correct me if it isn't). It was in the garden shed and settled on the (dirty!) window. The pictures are rotated because they look better to me with the moth horizontal and the light from below makes them a little different.

K3 + Irix 150mm (plume moth), Sigma 105mm (the other moth). Both hand held, steadied against any convenient surface.

Comments etc. welcome as usual.

1.



2.



3.



4.



5.



Steve

Your eyesight must be better than mine...

Steve

Nice, very nice.

Is this the start of a new genre - minimalist macro - small and less is more?

Steve

Definitely worth getting a record of that invasion as a reminder of what might be a once in a lifetime event for you. No. 8 is my favourite lady, it's the way the wings drift out of focus. Pity about the distracting white patch in top right corner, is there a way you could reduce it's brightness so it's like the other OOF blobs?

Leaving ladies aside, I also like the comma. The lighting and shadow of the wing lift it above a simple record shot.

Steve

Well worth giving the dragonflies a bit of bother!

All excellent photos, but the one that stands out for me in No. 1. Getting the damselfly in the shot as well as the dragonfly lifts it from 'just' being a portrait of a dragonfly to a glimpse of pond life in action. There's a hint of damselfly wings moving frantically fast and, to cap it all, reflections in the water of both dragonfly and damselfly which gives it a 3-D feel. Love it.

How do you find the PLM 55-300 for this sort of thing? Do you think you would have got the first shot with, say, the old 55-300 or DA*300?

Steve

Interesting you should say that. I hadn't commented on this set because, in spite of them being technically excellent (of course), I found myself thinking "So what?". The only ones that jumped out at me were 2 and 3, both quite striking, but it would be hard to recognise them as being taken at Hartland. You may have explained why I felt like that.

In his book First Light, Joe Cornish says "I think some of the greatest landscape photographs are details", mentioning Ansel Adams and others. Perhaps that's the way to go next time you're there. And perhaps the bigger vistas will grow from starting small. Just a thought.

Steve

Surprising what a Q-S1 and 03 fisheye can do. Even more surprising that the fly stayed put given how close the lens was. Pity it wasn't a butterfly .

Comments etc. welcome as usual.




Steve

Isn't that called a plate?

Hmmmmm.... "The Pentax Plate" - It has a certain ring to it...

Steve

There's a mug celebrating 80 Years of C---- Cameras if you don't like what Pentax is offering, although of course the ergonomics wouldn't be as good. You can even get the C---- design on a duvet cover. Anyone fancy sleeping in a Pentax?

Steve

No more guesses, so I can reveal that the flower is a variety of rock knotweed (nothing to do with Japanese knotweed, thank goodness!). A well behaved ground cover plant that copes well with neglect, so fits well in my garden . Here's a picture of the flower spike as it is usually seen.




Steve