I'm hoping this counts ...

Cobra

Cobra

In Memoriam. TPer Emeritus
Admin
Messages
115,214
Name
The real Chris
Edit My Images
No
As a gob shot :D

( just my luck, its the wrong side of the web :rolleyes: )

(Orb weaver? )


003 by Cobra, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Excellent capture what was the set up used please.

GEORGE.
 
HYLTON GEORGE said:
Excellent capture what was the set up used please.

GEORGE.
Click to expand...
Thanks George (y)
Canon 7D II Canon 100 mm 2.8 macro & Canon MR-14EX ring flash.
1/250th & f/9
 
Still upside down ;)
Getting better Matey.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yup, it's an orb weaver, chances are if you visit the same spot tomorrow it might be still there, they are very habitual. What ISO were you at here? Just wondering as with off cam flash you can often get away with 1/60 - 1/80th for slower moving macro subjects and could drop the ISO a little
 
Nice shot. I don't have a ring flash. Seems to do the job ok :)

Les
 
Cagey75 said:
Just wondering as with off cam flash you can often get away with 1/60 - 1/80th for slower moving macro subjects and could drop the ISO a little
Click to expand...
Thanks for that (y)
I was using a ring flash at 200 iso, thats a bit high then?
 
Lez325 said:
Nice shot. I don't have a ring flash. Seems to do the job ok :)

Les
Click to expand...
I've had one for years, Les, and TBH I totally forgot I had it until having a bit of a tidy up in the "chuck it all in" cupboard.
I thought I'd better try and get some use out of it :D
 
Cobra said:
Thanks for that (y)
I was using a ring flash at 200 iso, thats a bit high then?
Click to expand...

ISO 200 is fine, just thought it was a little noisey, maybe this was pushing exposure in PP because of the higher SS? if so, then reducing the SS will prevent under exposure and you won't have to raise exp as post so much

Also someone suggested it was upside down? am I seeing it after a flip or this is how it was? Because for me this is the right way round, this is how we see them on the webs
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
just thought it was a little noisey, maybe this was pushing exposure in PP?
Click to expand...
Its quite a crop TBH this is as close as I could get with the 100mm ( just a re-size nothing else)
I did push the levels a tad ..

003a.jpg


Cagey75 said:
am I seeing it after a flip or this is how it was?
Click to expand...
That's how it was.
 
Cobra said:
Its quite a crop TBH this is as close as I could get with the 100mm ( just a re-size nothing else)
I did push the levels a tad ..

View attachment 249078



That's how it was.
Click to expand...

Yeah looks a lot cleaner there, what I think I'm seeing is compression rather than noise with a tad over exposing in the processed version. Are you exporting them at full res? Or is it even the forum that's adding it? With shots like this I tend not to over do it on bumping exposure, but that's a personal choice, I don't mind maintaining some of that dark contrast
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Are you exporting them at full res?
Click to expand...
Yes, click through ( if you want ) its on flickr
I don't see much difference TBH, though.
I just did another one ( process) just USM nothing else and it does look cleaner TBH
 
Cobra said:
Yes, click through ( if you want ) its on flickr
I don't see much difference TBH, though.
I just did another one ( process) just USM nothing else and it does look cleaner TBH
Click to expand...

Looks sharper on Flickr here, it seems a little stretched on the forum [viewing an a 24" mnitor here] - that would add to it a little maybe. Don't be afraid to leave the spider a little darker I'd say, it can add more depth

Just to try show what I mean, not a great example by any means but tried to find one as close to yours as I could - this was at 1/80th so I didn't have to bump the flash as much, and I didn't raise exp as I like a bit of punch in macro - if anything knowing me I pulled it back in post - I think when they're overly brightened they lose a bit of this

Just a thumbnail you can follow through to Flickr
Orb Weaver by K G, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Just to try show what I mean,
Click to expand...
Nice ! :)
I see where you are coming from with that.
I guess its a slightly different processing technique, from my usual animal stuff, where it tends to be "quite bright and sharp" to pull out the definition in the fur
and brightness in the eyes.


Thanks for all the tips and suggestions, Keith, they are appreciated. (y)
 
Cobra said:
Nice ! :)
I see where you are coming from with that.
I guess its a slightly different processing technique, from my usual animal stuff, where it tends to be "quite bright and sharp" to pull out the definition in the fur
and brightness in the eyes.


Thanks for all the tips and suggestions, Keith, they are appreciated. (y)
Click to expand...

A lot of it is personal preference. Macro is very technical, even after years of trying I'm still learning each time and still looking at other people's macro images and thinking, dang! some day ... :D it also takes great patience which might be where I fail the most :ROFLMAO:
 
You are improving Chris and which side of the web you are on is often an issue with spiders
 
alfbranch said:
You are improving Chris
Click to expand...
Thanks Alf that is very much appreciated.
I'll keep at it and one day I might get somewhere near yours and others images posted here (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top