Wolf spider

[lesno1]

[billtils]

Another nice one Les. A couple of small opportunites for improvement perhaps - obviously the greenery at the top right, less obvious, I wonder if you can do anything to bring out the spider's eyes.

[DanK]

Les,

To be frank, this isn't up to the standard of the excellent images you've been posting recently. As Bill said, top down isn't a particularly interesting perspective unless you want to use the photo for identification. More important IMHO is that there isn't much detail. This is partly because of the harsh lighting (e.g., a lot lost in shadows that you could probably recover), and partly because it looks like it was severely cropped.

Dan

[Geoff F]

Clicking on the image to show at a higher resolution does help, but Pardosa spiders are tricky to photograph. When faced with a potential shadow problem I normally use a bit of fill flash. However this also raises the risk of over exposure so you have to be careful with your settings.

[DanK]

Clicking on the image to show at a higher resolution does help, but Pardosa spiders are tricky to photograph. When faced with a potential shadow problem I normally use a bit of fill flash. However this also raises the risk of over exposure so you have to be careful with your settings.

My solution to the exposure problem is to shoot most bug macros with diffused flash in TTL (in Canon parlance, E-TTL) mode. The camera will automatically adjust exposure for the subject. You can adjust for differences in the background (usually because of variations in distance) by very modestly changing ISO. The flash also makes harsh sunlight less of an issue.

I've played with various settings in doing this, but with my old camera, which has a base ISO of 100, 200 is the starting point for this application. I often go to 400 but rarely higher. Here's an example where I went to ISO 400, f/16, 1/200. You can see that the lighting of the subject and background are reasonably balanced.

[AntonioCorreia]

Dan, this photograph of a wasp is truly exceptional, demonstrating impressive technical quality. The anatomical detail is extraordinary - each body segment, the powerful mandibles and compound eyes are captured with crystalline sharpness.
The depth of field is masterfully controlled, isolating the subject with a smooth bokeh that enhances its imposing presence. The brown and golden tones contrast beautifully with the natural green of the leaf, creating a harmonious composition.

The lighting is perfect, revealing natural textures and highlights. It is unequivocally a photographic success of high artistic merit, with only the small white spot in the bottom right corner worth mentioning, which would be easily correctable through cloning, making this already magnificent image absolutely impeccable.

Well done !

[DanK]

Antonio,

Thanks very much for the kind comments. You are right: I should clone out the white spot. I'm allergic to wasp stings, so I am quite cautious taking photos of wasps. Most bees are less aggressive, and I'm not allergic to them.

I've been doing very little of this type of photography recently. Partly it's a matter of age. The equipment is very awkward, and you need very fine control of movement that I find harder now than I did 10 years ago. I mount the camera on a monopod and attach an off-camera flash and diffuser separately, which makes the entire set up poorly balanced. I then use minor movements of the monopod to achieve focus. This gets harder as one gets older.

Here's a photo of one of the arrangements I've used:



I'm thinking of splurging on new, lighter, and better balanced equipment that would make this easier. A micro four thirds camera is ideal for this kind of work, and there are lightweight diffusers that work with the flash mounted on the camera. This would make taking these photos far easier. However, since it would mean totally new equipment (apart from the monopod), it would be a major investment.

Dan

[billtils]

Antonio,


I've been doing very little of this type of photography recently. Partly it's a matter of age. The equipment is very awkward, and you need very fine control of movement that I find harder now than I did 10 years ago. I mount the camera on a monopod and attach an off-camera flash and diffuser separately, which makes the entire set up poorly balanced. I then use minor movements of the monopod to achieve focus. This gets harder as one gets older.

I'm thinking of splurging on new, lighter, and better balanced equipment that would make this easier. A micro four thirds camera is ideal for this kind of work, and there are lightweight diffusers that work with the flash mounted on the camera. This would make taking these photos far easier. However, since it would mean totally new equipment (apart from the monopod), it would be a major investment.

Dan

Do it Dan!

I switched to Fuji and one of my camera club buddies switched to Olympus M4/3 and we don't regret it. We went down similar pathways of procrastinating to the very end and the only regret we have is not doing it sooner. We both got a good P/X deal and if there is an image quality difference it is not noticeable**. I made the move to get rid of weight but my younger friend did it for health reasons.

** that of course is not an absolute but I'm still printing A3 with no problems.

[DanK]

Bill,

Thanks. I'm leaning toward doing it, but there is still one big decision.

Option 1: I keep my Canon equipment and use the OM for specific purposes, like macro and travel. If I do this, the logical thing is to buy the EM-5 with its less capable kit lens because it's much cheaper and both lighter and smaller.

Option 2: I go all in and buy an OM-1 Mark II as my main camera.

Even though I've always tried to avoid relying on two cameras with very different controls and menus, I think Option 1 is probably the most sensible for me. The Canon R6 II is a wonderful camera, and I a number of very high quality and expensive Canon lenses that I would have to sell at a fraction of their value.

BTW, I print A2 and I do a lot of low-light photography, which changes the calculation somewhat.

There is a saying attributed to the sage Hillel that translates roughly as "If I am not for me, who is? And when I'm for myself alone, what am I? And if not now, when?" Maybe it's time to indulge myself.

Dan

[billtils]

There is a saying attributed to the sage Hillel that translates roughly as "If I am not for me, who is? And when I'm for myself alone, what am I? And if not now, when?" Maybe it's time to indulge myself.

Dan

Maybe it is.

Rewinding slightly, you did reference the elephant in the room - age and all its fellow travelers. I have reached the point where looking after M. Poirot's little grey cells and enjoying life matter more than an accountant's view on income and expenditure and I do not regret making the move.

The only reason I can think of not to do it is "better the devil you know", and in all honesty there are still moments where my reflexes are to do it the Nikon way only discover that there is no Nikon way in the Fuji menu system (or the OM one).

Bill