[photo] hoverfly macro
Troy Piggins
love these insects, but haven't been able to get that close to
them. Taken at close to 2:1 mag with 100mm macro lens and 68mm
extension tubes. I've been using the tubes a lot lately. To
date I had been using just the bare macro lens to get comfortable
at 1:1 shooting. Decided it's time to practise with the tubes
now.
Still testing out the Lumiquest Mini Softbox diffuser on my 430EX
flash. Here the flash is on a bracket top left of lens -
pointing almost straight ahead. I think the lighting is quite
nice in this shot. It was a little harsh in some other shots
when the flash was a little further away from the lens. The
LQ Softbox is (obviously) bigger than the Mini Softbox, and is
more forgiving with the soft light and where it's positioned.
Self-critique:
Shame the grass blade it was on was a little ratty, and that
lighter bokeh twig in bg is not in the most desirable position,
but maybe I'm being too harsh on myself. Maybe should clone out
the web under the blade? I'm trying not to process too much,
only healing sensor dust, no cropping etc. Didn't even change
the white balance for this shot.
http://piggo.com/~troy/photos.php?album=2008_07_12&img=photos/2008_07_12/img_8539.jpg
Make sure you look at the larger size image to view the mystical
properties of the... yadayada :)
--
Troy Piggins
I always appreciate critique.
Jeff R.
"Troy Piggins" <usene...@piggo.com> wrote in message
news:200807131...@usenet.piggo.com...
> This is the closest and sharpest I've captured a hoverfly.
>
>
> Make sure you look at the larger size image to view the mystical
> properties of the... yadayada :)
Awesome, Troy. Well done.
Now - where's my reversing ring gone?
--
Jeff R.
Troy Piggins
> Troy Piggins wrote :
>
>> This is the closest and sharpest I've captured a hoverfly.
>>
>> http://piggo.com/~troy/photos.php?album=2008_07_12&img=photos/2008_07_12/img_8539.jpg
>>
>> Make sure you look at the larger size image to view the mystical
>> properties of the... yadayada :)
>
> Awesome, Troy. Well done.
>
> Now - where's my reversing ring gone?
:) Thanks mate. Good to see some insects still around in Winter
here.
Pete D
"Troy Piggins" <usene...@piggo.com> wrote in message
news:200807131...@usenet.piggo.com...
Troy Piggins
> Troy Piggins wrote :
>
>> This is the closest and sharpest I've captured a hoverfly. I
>> love these insects, but haven't been able to get that close to
>> them. Taken at close to 2:1 mag with 100mm macro lens and 68mm
>> extension tubes. I've been using the tubes a lot lately. To
>> date I had been using just the bare macro lens to get comfortable
>> at 1:1 shooting. Decided it's time to practise with the tubes
>> now.
>> http://piggo.com/~troy/photos.php?album=2008_07_12&img=photos/2008_07_12/img_8539.jpg
>>
>> Make sure you look at the larger size image to view the mystical
>> properties of the... yadayada :)
>
Thanks Pete. :)
PS - I'm currently in the final negotiations of aquiring the
Canon MP-E 65 1-5x macro lens. Had my eye on it since I started
shooting macro, but been waiting for the right deal to come
along. It's a very specialised piece of glass - can't focus to
infinity, only shoots 1:1 to 5:1 range. Very sharp. Just need
to hide it from fiance until after the wedding is paid for... :)
Colin.D
> This is the closest and sharpest I've captured a hoverfly. I
> love these insects, but haven't been able to get that close to
> them. Taken at close to 2:1 mag with 100mm macro lens and 68mm
> extension tubes. I've been using the tubes a lot lately. To
> date I had been using just the bare macro lens to get comfortable
> at 1:1 shooting. Decided it's time to practise with the tubes
> now.
>
Troy,
Do you have the expensive tubes with the pass-through electronic
connections? If not, how do you manage DoF and exposure with the lens
always wide open?
Colin D
Troy Piggins
G'day Colin. Not sure what your definition of "expensive tubes"
is. Mine were about AU$130 IIRC, Kenko brand. There are other
brands similar - Jessops. They do have elec connectors and allow
me to set the lens aperture. There are also expensive Canon
brand ones, but the Kenko ones do fine for me.
I have read that if you have the kind that don't do that, you can
mount the lens on camera without the tubes on, set the aperture
you want, press and hold the depth of field preview button and
remove the lens while held down, mount tubes, re-mount lens and
it'll stay at the previous aperture. Never tried it, no idea if
that works.
I'd rather pay hundred bucks or so and get the ones like mine.
Colin.D
tubes, with and without the pass-through electrics, and I have read
about that method of pre-setting the aperture, but I would rather be
able to set the aperture at will. Last price I saw was on TradeMe, a
Kiwi auction site, about $40 for the non-electric, and about $240 for
the good ones. I gotta do it someday!
Colin D.
Annika1980
> PS - I'm currently in the final negotiations of aquiring the
> Canon MP-E 65 1-5x macro lens. Had my eye on it since I started
> shooting macro, but been waiting for the right deal to come
> along. It's a very specialised piece of glass - can't focus to
> infinity, only shoots 1:1 to 5:1 range. Very sharp. Just need
> to hide it from fiance until after the wedding is paid for... :)
Sweet shot! So when's the big date?
P.S. Make offer.
Helen
> This is the closest and sharpest I've captured a hoverfly. I
> love these insects, but haven't been able to get that close to
> them. Taken at close to 2:1 mag with 100mm macro lens and 68mm
> extension tubes. I've been using the tubes a lot lately. To
> date I had been using just the bare macro lens to get comfortable
> at 1:1 shooting. Decided it's time to practise with the tubes
> now.
>
> Still testing out the Lumiquest Mini Softbox diffuser on my 430EX
> flash. Here the flash is on a bracket top left of lens -
> pointing almost straight ahead. I think the lighting is quite
> nice in this shot. It was a little harsh in some other shots
> when the flash was a little further away from the lens. The
> LQ Softbox is (obviously) bigger than the Mini Softbox, and is
> more forgiving with the soft light and where it's positioned.
>
> Self-critique:
> Shame the grass blade it was on was a little ratty, and that
> lighter bokeh twig in bg is not in the most desirable position,
> but maybe I'm being too harsh on myself. Maybe should clone out
> the web under the blade? I'm trying not to process too much,
> only healing sensor dust, no cropping etc. Didn't even change
> the white balance for this shot.
>
>
> Make sure you look at the larger size image to view the mystical
> properties of the... yadayada :)
>
> --
> Troy Piggins
> I always appreciate critique.
I didn't find the blade of grass bothersome at all, it actually adds
to the pic.
Excellent work Troy.
Let your fiance buy something she really wants and you get that lens.
Consider it wedding gifts to each other. :0)
Helen
Alan Browne
> This is the closest and sharpest I've captured a hoverfly. I
> love these insects, but haven't been able to get that close to
> them. Taken at close to 2:1 mag with 100mm macro lens and 68mm
> extension tubes. I've been using the tubes a lot lately. To
> date I had been using just the bare macro lens to get comfortable
> at 1:1 shooting. Decided it's time to practise with the tubes
> now.
> http://piggo.com/~troy/photos.php?album=2008_07_12&img=photos/2008_07_12/img_8539.jpg
>
> Make sure you look at the larger size image to view the mystical
> properties of the... yadayada :)
!! Sharp !!
Great image.
I note also the little whitish stub just ahead of the rear leg. This
little 'pendulum' vibrates in flight to act as a stabilizer. (Learned
this recently when looking up some details on mosquitoes)
Cheers,
Alan
--
-- 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.
Paul Furman
> * Colin.D wrote :
>> Troy Piggins wrote:
>>> This is the closest and sharpest I've captured a hoverfly. I
>>> love these insects, but haven't been able to get that close to
>>> them. Taken at close to 2:1 mag with 100mm macro lens and 68mm
>>> extension tubes. I've been using the tubes a lot lately. To
>>> date I had been using just the bare macro lens to get comfortable
>>> at 1:1 shooting. Decided it's time to practise with the tubes
>>> now.
>>
>> connections? If not, how do you manage DoF and exposure with the lens
>> always wide open?
>
> G'day Colin. Not sure what your definition of "expensive tubes"
> is. Mine were about AU$130 IIRC, Kenko brand. There are other
> brands similar - Jessops. They do have elec connectors and allow
> me to set the lens aperture. There are also expensive Canon
> brand ones, but the Kenko ones do fine for me.
>
> I have read that if you have the kind that don't do that, you can
> mount the lens on camera without the tubes on, set the aperture
> you want, press and hold the depth of field preview button and
> remove the lens while held down, mount tubes, re-mount lens and
> it'll stay at the previous aperture. Never tried it, no idea if
> that works.
>
> I'd rather pay hundred bucks or so and get the ones like mine.
> :)
I've got an old Nikon E2 (15mm) extension tube with a plunger that can
be used to open the aperture for focusing with old lenses and used to
stop down new 'G' lenses that lack an aperture ring. There's threading
on the plunger & I got some nuts & bolts to make it adjustable for the
new lenses on a bellows. The 85mm T/S lens has a similar button when
released it lets you focus wide open, pressing it stops down to what the
aperture ring says. It actually has electronics to report the aperture
but metering needs to be done stopped down & untilted. Not as tough as
it sounds, actually.
BTW, I've enjoyed you macro shots & thanks for the technical background.
This hoverfly: I'm not fond of black backgrounds, otherwise I like!
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Troy Piggins
>> the white balance for this shot.
>>
>>
>> Make sure you look at the larger size image to view the mystical
>> properties of the... yadayada :)
>
> to the pic.
> Excellent work Troy.
> Let your fiance buy something she really wants and you get that lens.
> Consider it wedding gifts to each other. :0)
> Helen
Thanks Helen :)
Troy Piggins
October.
> P.S. Make offer.
On the lens? Done. It's on its way.
Troy Piggins
> Troy Piggins wrote:
>> This is the closest and sharpest I've captured a hoverfly. I
>> love these insects, but haven't been able to get that close to
>> them. Taken at close to 2:1 mag with 100mm macro lens and 68mm
>> extension tubes. I've been using the tubes a lot lately. To
>> date I had been using just the bare macro lens to get comfortable
>> at 1:1 shooting. Decided it's time to practise with the tubes
>> now.
>
>> http://piggo.com/~troy/photos.php?album=2008_07_12&img=photos/2008_07_12/img_8539.jpg
>>
>> Make sure you look at the larger size image to view the mystical
>> properties of the... yadayada :)
>
> !! Sharp !!
>
> Great image.
THanks Alan. :)
> I note also the little whitish stub just ahead of the rear leg. This
> little 'pendulum' vibrates in flight to act as a stabilizer. (Learned
> this recently when looking up some details on mosquitoes)
Yeah, it's fascinating see these sort of details you would
normally miss with the naked eye, isn't it? I love it.
Troy Piggins
:) Thanks Paul.
Troy Piggins
> Colin.D wrote:
>
>> Ok Troy, thanks for the info. I've seen both versions of the Kenko
>> tubes, with and without the pass-through electrics, and I have read
>> about that method of pre-setting the aperture, but I would rather be
>> able to set the aperture at will. Last price I saw was on TradeMe, a
>> Kiwi auction site, about $40 for the non-electric, and about $240 for
>> the good ones. I gotta do it someday!
>
> compared to their Canon/Nikon counterparts but they are cheap as hell. I
> got a set that I use from time-to-time and you can notice a bit of play when
> using a heavy lens. They are still worth the money.
Mine are pretty tight but I don't put big, heavy lenses on them.
> BTW> Excellent shot, Troy.
Thanks Rita. :)
Troy Piggins
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Troy Piggins wrote:
>
>>> This is the closest and sharpest I've captured a hoverfly. I
>>> love these insects, but haven't been able to get that close to
>>> them. Taken at close to 2:1 mag with 100mm macro lens and 68mm
>>> extension tubes. I've been using the tubes a lot lately. To
>>> date I had been using just the bare macro lens to get comfortable
>>> at 1:1 shooting. Decided it's time to practise with the tubes
>>> now.
>>
>>> http://piggo.com/~troy/photos.php?album=2008_07_12&img=photos/2008_07_12/img_8539.jpg
>>>
>>> Make sure you look at the larger size image to view the mystical
>>> properties of the... yadayada :)
>>
>> !! Sharp !!
>>
>> Great image.
>>
>> I note also the little whitish stub just ahead of the rear leg. This
>> little 'pendulum' vibrates in flight to act as a stabilizer. (Learned
>> this recently when looking up some details on mosquitoes)
>
> material on the underside of its resting place... Very sharp indeed!
>
> - JT
> Tony did an excellent job in capturing this one
Thanks mate :)
Annika1980
>
> > Sweet shot! So when's the big date?
>
> October.
You're in luck! D-Mac has that whole month clear on his schedule
(November - September as well) and he works dirt cheap. Give him a
call and tell him I sent ya.
Troy Piggins
> Troy Piggins wrote:
>>
>> > Sweet shot! So when's the big date?
>>
>> October.
>
> You're in luck! D-Mac has that whole month clear on his schedule
> (November - September as well) and he works dirt cheap. Give him a
> call and tell him I sent ya.
Shit. I should have seen that coming when you asked that
question...
Russell D.
>
That just too cool, Troy. Awesome. Only critique is when are you going
to show us how you do it.
Russell
Mr.T
"Helen" <helensi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e26c378f-9c2f-4003...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>Let your fiance buy something she really wants and you get that lens.
>Consider it wedding gifts to each other. :0)
He probably already spent more than that on the engagement ring.
How would you suggest he gets her to pay for the lens though? :-)
MrT.
Troy Piggins
:) Thanks mate. Thought the gear and settings was pretty
self-explanatory in my first post. Ok. I'll see if I can get
some shots of my current rig[1] this weekend. It's nothing
special. Just a macro lens, extension tubes and off-camera flash
with diffuser.
[1] Calling it a "rig" makes it sound cool, hey?
Troy Piggins
> Helen wrote :
>
>>Let your fiance buy something she really wants and you get that lens.
>>Consider it wedding gifts to each other. :0)
>
> He probably already spent more than that on the engagement ring.
Sad but true. :)
> How would you suggest he gets her to pay for the lens though? :-)
She can work it off. :) I'll leave it there...
--
Troy Piggins
Mr.T
> > He probably already spent more than that on the engagement ring.
>
> Sad but true. :)
>
> > How would you suggest he gets her to pay for the lens though? :-)
>
> She can work it off. :) I'll leave it there...
Not even married yet, and already you assume you have to pay for it. My
commiserations, how sad :-(
MrT.
Annika1980
>
> > How would you suggest he gets her to pay for the lens though? :-)
>
> She can work it off. :) I'll leave it there...
>
Boy, are you in for a big surprise!
Enjoy the pre-marital playtime, that's all I'm sayin.
Helen
Let's not label ALL women to be like that. :0)
Russell D.
Yes, you did explain it and I read it. I'm just not able to visualize
distances here. As close as your lens must be to the lovely model, I
don't see how you are getting such nice lighting without the lens
getting in the way.
Russell
BTW, I've been showing your macros to my thirteen year old daughter and
she thinks you pictures "rock."
Troy Piggins
:) I think you know I'm joking.
Helen
Of course I do! :0)
But I agree with an earlier post. Don't feel bad about buying that
lens. That engagement ring you bought her cost quite a bit I bet, so
I'd say everything evens up! ;0)
Helen
Troy Piggins
> Troy Piggins wrote:
>> * Russell D. wrote :
>>> Troy Piggins wrote:
>>> That just too cool, Troy. Awesome. Only critique is when are you going
>>> to show us how you do it.
>>>
>>> Russell
>>
>> :) Thanks mate. Thought the gear and settings was pretty
>> self-explanatory in my first post. Ok. I'll see if I can get
>> some shots of my current rig[1] this weekend. It's nothing
>> special. Just a macro lens, extension tubes and off-camera flash
>> with diffuser.
>>
>> [1] Calling it a "rig" makes it sound cool, hey?
>
> Yes, you did explain it and I read it. I'm just not able to visualize
> distances here. As close as your lens must be to the lovely model, I
> don't see how you are getting such nice lighting without the lens
> getting in the way.
At 1:1 shooting with just the bare macro lens at its minimum
focus distance, the subject is about 150mm from the front of lens
- that's what we call the "working distance".
That shot was taken at close to 2:1 magnification with 68mm of
extension tubes. Haven't measured it, but I would imagine the
working distance is down to about 75-100mm.
I see what you're asking about the lighting, and you are correct.
The flash is not on-camera. I have a flash bracket and
off-camera shoe chord. The flash also has a diffuser on it to
soften the light since the subject so close. I have the face of
the diffuser at about 2 o'clock right at the front of lens (if
the camera was pointed at you, but obviously doesn't matter too
much if it's 10 o'clock or 2, you get the point).
Sometimes have to play with flash exposure compensation to tone
down the light. I vary it between 0 and -.3.
While I'm organising myself to get shots of my rig, these shots
of others with similar setups may help.
Brian "LordV" Valentine has really perfected macro photography,
and my setup is modelled on his. This shot shows the
relationship of flash and diffuser, although his is a ghetto
DIY diffuser make from cut up Coke cans and paper towel :)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/75900443/
He has been featured in many magazines etc. Love his work.
Browse his FlickR gallery. You'll see much better dewdrops than
the ones I took.
See how he grips the beanpole for stability? The hoverfly shot I
posted is the first time I've tried that. Really works! And
quicker to maneuvre/adjust than a monopod.
Hope that helps. It's all I can think of at the moment.
> Russell
>
> BTW, I've been showing your macros to my thirteen year old daughter and
> she thinks you pictures "rock."
Awesome! Please thank her for me, I'm flattered. :)
Mr.T
>But I agree with an earlier post. Don't feel bad about buying that
>lens. That engagement ring you bought her cost quite a bit I bet, so
>I'd say everything evens up! ;0)
Only if you think a man buying his OWN lens is "even" with HIM buying HER an
engagement ring.
(Not that women would ever want to give the man anything similar in cost, or
in fact anything at all in most cases!)
But Troy if you've got to spend YOUR money on HER, why on earth feel guilty
about spending YOUR money on yourself?
MrT.
Troy Piggins
Don't feel as guilty about that as it sounded. Probably more the
fact I haven't told her yet is making me feel guilty. Got a
pretty open and honest relationship so no reason to not tell her.
Don't believe in secrets, so might tell her tonight. Why am I
sharing all this again? :)
Noons
>
> http://piggo.com/~troy/photos.php?album=2008_07_12&img=photos/2008_07_12/img_8539.jpg
>
very nice!
> Make sure you look at the larger size image to view the mystical
> properties of the... yadayada :)
>
ROFL!
Helen
> "Helen" <helensilverb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
My point is that she shouldn't have any hard feelings about Troy
buying that lens, since he spent the big bucks on the rings, probably
the dress and the flowers too. It would be wonderful if she bought
that lens for him, but I don't know the circumstances so I'll leave it
at that. On a personal note, I am not "most cases", if it were me, I
would be delighted to buy my fiance the lens he wanted.
Troy Piggins
:) Thanks.
RobertJM
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:487c59be$0$17511$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
--
Rob
Mr.T
"RobertJM" <rob...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:-O2dnagHZeDPGuHV...@posted.plusnet...
> Getting ready for when its ' OUR ' money ;)
Only when he makes more than her :-)
MrT.
Mr.T
>On a personal note, I am not "most cases", if it were me, I
>would be delighted to buy my fiance the lens he wanted.
Nice to know there is at least one in the world then.
MrT.
Helen
> "Helen" <helensilverb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I am indeed a very rare person.
A lot of women would view your statements as sexist.
John McWilliams
Er, so would some men; or at least someone who's been burned a few times.
--
john mcwilliams
Mr.T
>I am indeed a very rare person.
>A lot of women would view your statements as sexist.
Most in fact, just as I view *many* of their ideas as sexist too!
It's just another case of "shoot the messenger" if they don't like someone
stating common (not claiming universal) facts.
Of course few women acknowledge *anything* they do as sexist unfortunately.
MrT.
Russell D.
> He has been featured in many magazines etc. Love his work.
> Browse his FlickR gallery. You'll see much better dewdrops than
> the ones I took.
>
I didn't see anything much better. I'm not even sure it's better.
> See how he grips the beanpole for stability? The hoverfly shot I
> posted is the first time I've tried that. Really works! And
> quicker to maneuvre/adjust than a monopod.
>
That is a great idea! I have a very stout and light bamboo pole that
will work very nicely for that.
> Hope that helps. It's all I can think of at the moment.
>
It helps a lot. Thanks for taking the time.
Russell