Twenty-five second exposure: Brown Cricket

[JBW]

It was dusk and Myra said there was a brown bug on a cement hollow block just outside our front door. I couldn't resist so out I went. I turned on the dim porch light and without a flash got this shot. I'm rather pleased with the results.

[purplehaze]

Rightly so, Brian. My first thought was that the shot is too tight, but there is some nice sharp detail to be explored there.

[JBW]

Rightly so, Brian. My first thought was that the shot is too tight, but there is some nice sharp detail to be explored there.

Exactly. To properly frame this shot to get in all of the cricket requires me to be too far back for the detail I like.

[Manfred M]

I suspect that you would have had a better shot without all of the photographic "amputations" of legs and antennae.

[Mike Buckley]

Rich colors (except for the glare)!

To properly frame this shot to get in all of the cricket requires me to be too far back for the detail I like.

In my mind, when faced with that situation the solution is to close in on the bug using a composition that works. This composition doesn't work for me because of the "cut off" appendages. Another way of putting it is that you didn't close in enough. Consider cropping on the right to eliminate about one-third of the image. Even though that improves the image for me, beginning with a composition that would have been stronger would have been the ideal way to go.

[JBW]

I suspect that you would have had a better shot without all of the photographic "amputations" of legs and antennae.

Possibly. Here's the original. I was double the prime focus distance. If I had tried to include all of the cricket I would have been a meter or so away. Very limited detail.

[Mike Buckley]

I wonder if you're confusing detail with magnification. All of the detail in your first version is present in your second version.

[Round Tuit]

Possibly. Here's the original. I was double the prime focus distance. If I had tried to include all of the cricket I would have been a meter or so away. Very limited detail.

Pardon my ignorance but what do you mean by "prime focus distance" in relation to a camera lens? I have only ever heard the term "prime focus" used as one of two common methods of taking astronomical photos using a telescope.

BTW +1 to Manfred and Mike's comments.

[Shadowman]

Nice capture of the colors.

[JBW]

I wonder if you're confusing detail with magnification. All of the detail in your first version is present in your second version.

Now that you mention it....

[JBW]

Pardon my ignorance but what do you mean by "prime focus distance" in relation to a camera lens? I have only ever heard the term "prime focus" used as one of two common methods of taking astronomical photos using a telescope.

BTW +1 to Manfred and Mike's comments.

It is indeed a term associated with astronomy and occasionally in macro work. It is the distance where your lens/camera focuses your subject with no lens adjustment.

[JBW]

Nice capture of the colors.

I was amazed at the colours once I got it up on the big screen for pp.

[JBW]

Rich colors (except for the glare)!



In my mind, when faced with that situation the solution is to close in on the bug using a composition that works. This composition doesn't work for me because of the "cut off" appendages. Another way of putting it is that you didn't close in enough. Consider cropping on the right to eliminate about one-third of the image. Even though that improves the image for me, beginning with a composition that would have been stronger would have been the ideal way to go.

Sadly closer was not an option because of where the cricket was. Cropping 1/3 off the right would have destroyed the flow of the wing which I wanted to keep. You're right the ideal is a perfectly composed shot as the shutter is clicked but that's rarely possible in the bug world.

[Round Tuit]

It is indeed a term associated with astronomy and occasionally in macro work. It is the distance where your lens/camera focuses your subject with no lens adjustment.

If I understand you well then would "prime focus distance" be synonymous with "minimum focusing distance"?

[Rainforest]

I've never seen a cricket that close up - neat. You brought out the colors really well in PP.

[JBW]

If I understand you well then would "prime focus distance" be synonymous with "minimum focusing distance"?

and probably a more accepted term.

[JBW]

I've never seen a cricket that close up - neat. You brought out the colors really well in PP.

a good micro lens is a fine tool.

[Manfred M]

Possibly. Here's the original. I was double the prime focus distance. If I had tried to include all of the cricket I would have been a meter or so away. Very limited detail.

I don't know the lens at all, but what I do know is that cropping a bit out of the image is far easier than trying to rebuild content that was not photographed. If you were able to photograph this close, backing off a bit would definitely be within the lens's ability to focus.

[JBW]

I don't know the lens at all, but what I do know is that cropping a bit out of the image is far easier than trying to rebuild content that was not photographed. If you were able to photograph this close, backing off a bit would definitely be within the lens's ability to focus.

The lens will focus at infinity and give you a nice landscape. That's not the question. The question is how much will you see. If I can get within 10 inches I can with a little luck get a good compound eye shot. Fifteen inches away try as I may I'm not going to see the compound eyes. If I had included all of the cricket I would not have gotten enough magnification to see the detail the lens had captured.