Two flies

GardenersHelper

GardenersHelper

In Memoriam
Messages
6,344
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
 
Eye detail in #1 and #2 is excellent, but my fav is #3, the shooting angle is spot on, as is the super fine detail throughout, top drawer once again, Nick (y)

I agree with Mike when it comes to your lighting, those big diffusers must be just about perfect, as the light on all your shots is beyond good.

When I use my Ring Flash it tends to just light up the subject, whereas your twin KX800 lights up the subject and the complete surrounding area, or so it seems to me?
 
hoodedreeper said:
Great set of photos Nick,i like Number 3 the most :)
Click to expand...

Thanks Chris.

dibbly dobbler said:
The lighting is excellent Nick :)
Click to expand...

Thanks Mike.

The Weasel said:
Eye detail in #1 and #2 is excellent, but my fav is #3, the shooting angle is spot on, as is the super fine detail throughout, top drawer once again, Nick (y)
I agree with Mike when it comes to your lighting, those big diffusers must be just about perfect, as the light on all your shots is beyond good.
When I use my Ring Flash it tends to just light up the subject, whereas your twin KX800 lights up the subject and the complete surrounding area, or so it seems to me?
Click to expand...

Thanks Andy. The way I have the KX800 diffused it does throw the light around a bit, but it is still only local illumination. For example, in #3 there is that big almost black area in the top left quadrant where the light didn't reach. (I almost didn't post that one because of that dark area. I'm really not very keen on dark areas in backgrounds.)

One thing I do occasionally with the KX800 is to stretch out one of the arms, turn the power right up for that head and throw light on to the background. These are earlier version diffusers, and I hadn't started using concave diffusers then, but it gives the idea about stretching out one of the arms.


0791 11 Background illumination setup 600h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

It isn't always possible to do this (things get in the way), and when it is possible to move the head forwards it doesn't always light up the relevant bits of the background. And in any case I generally forget to try, or don't have enough time to try. Instead, and much more often, I keep moving the camera around, shooting and seeing what the effect is to try to find angles where the background works ok. It is surprising sometimes how a very small difference in direction can completely alter the look of the background, for example removing or introducing dark areas. Similarly, I also move the camera around to try to find angles that minimise hotspots. So to some extent what you are seeing isn't the lighting but rather the happenstance of different angles and the choice of image from often quite a large number of a particular subject.

Another thing to remember is that my lighting works better for some subjects than others. I have a terrible time with shiny bodies. I may put some shiny body images up at Flickr, which is a bit of a dumping ground for me, but I rarely post them here. The ants in this album at Flickr are an example of that. So by and large in posts here you only get to see the images I am most comfortable with (and some of them, well quite a lot actually, have infelicities in the lighting that I wish were not there).

Also bear in mind that some of the light distribution (and also the apparent sharpness) is the result of things I do in post processing.

So the illumination is important, in fact very important IMO. But it is only part of the story.
 
Fantastic set Nick. Number three is great with the angle and detail - so interesting to see the lighting you use to help achieve that. I have to say the first two are my favourites though with the iridescence and texture you caught in the wings perfectly - if more people saw rainbows on flies I don't think they'd be so unpopular ;)
 
Emja said:
Fantastic set Nick. Number three is great with the angle and detail - so interesting to see the lighting you use to help achieve that.
Click to expand...

Thanks Emma. The setup on the right here is the one I used for these shots, with the Raynox 150. The one on the left uses the more powerful Raynox 250. The difference with the 250 is that it has a shorter working distance and needs a smaller concave diffuser. The larger one used with the Raynox 150 needs some support above to stop it getting in the way or flapping around too much. The one for the Raynox 250 is small enough not to need any additional support.


0975 23 Raynox 250 and 150 setups by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

This is what the inside of the flash head diffusers look like.


0975 22 Flash head diffuser by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

These are taken from a post about the setup in the pinned Show us your macro rig thread.


Emja said:
I have to say the first two are my favourites though with the iridescence and texture you caught in the wings perfectly - if more people saw rainbows on flies I don't think they'd be so unpopular ;)
Click to expand...

I think that colour and texture and for that matter composition often take a back seat compared to magnification and detail in discussions of close-ups and macros. Perhaps that is why there are fewer posts and less responses to botanical subjects. Still, I know from your images and your comments that you (quite literally) see things differently. :)

Interesting thought about reaction to flies.
 
Last edited:
I love your persevarance with the tricky lighting of macro, and I think you should be well pleased with your results. I particularly like the make it yourself ethic over the must buy something ethos.
One of the top macro togs on here for sure.
 
Hertsman said:
I love your persevarance with the tricky lighting of macro, and I think you should be well pleased with your results. I particularly like the make it yourself ethic over the must buy something ethos.
One of the top macro togs on here for sure.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I think make it yourself is pretty common with diffusion for close-up and macro, for example see the huge variety of approaches in the Show us your macro rig thread. I know some people are happy with purchased diffusers, but a lot of us feel that we can get better illumination by making our own, usually with very inexpensive materials. And the experimentation and adjustment, trying different setups and diffusion materials is fun in its own right. Well, I find it so anyway. :)
 
Excellent set and I love your set up, very inventive (y)
 
Another awesome set Nick :clap::clap::clap::clap:.Regarding the backgrounds, I find the superb quality of the subjects immediately grab and the keep attention and I only looked at the background after reading the comments.
 
charlychuckchuck said:
Another awesome set Nick :clap::clap::clap::clap:.Regarding the backgrounds, I find the superb quality of the subjects immediately grab and the keep attention and I only looked at the background after reading the comments.
Click to expand...

Thanks Charles. My aim is to produce what I think of as "pretty pictures". Appealing (to my eye), not realistic - for example the sharpness and the colours in my photos are both overcooked compared to what I see in real life, and picking a nice-looking angle can produce a far different impression from real life viewing. So, just something that appeals to my visual tastes.

And for me a "pretty picture" is a combination of subject, immediate context (e.g. what it is standing on/is in amongst) and background. If any of them jars too much (for me, by way of, especially, brightness/darkness, or distracting shapes, colour, texture or noise) then if I can't "unjar" it with post processing then it will probably get thrown out. #3 above was on the borderline, because of the very dark area. An exception is when the subject or what is happening is unusual or otherwise particularly interesting or appealing, in which case anything goes (well, anything can stay if you get my meaning).
 
GardenersHelper said:
Thanks Emma. The setup on the right here is the one I used for these shots, with the Raynox 150. The one on the left uses the more powerful Raynox 250. The difference with the 250 is that it has a shorter working distance and needs a smaller concave diffuser. The larger one used with the Raynox 150 needs some support above to stop it getting in the way or flapping around too much. The one for the Raynox 250 is small enough not to need any additional support.

0975 22 Flash head diffuser by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

These are taken from a post about the setup in the pinned Show us your macro rig thread.


I think that colour and texture and for that matter composition often take a back seat compared to magnification and detail in discussions of close-ups and macros. Perhaps that is why there are fewer posts and less responses to botanical subjects. Still, I know from your images and your comments that you (quite literally) see things differently. :)

Interesting thought about reaction to flies.
Click to expand...

Ingenious Nick :)

I hope I'm not posting my shots in the wrong forum - I think the ones I put here do qualify as close ups, but not macro in the way you and others produce such stunning detail. Composition, colour and use of natural light are more important to me, but people here have been so very friendly and helpful...so unless you tell me to go elsewhere ;)
 
Emja said:
Ingenious Nick :)

I hope I'm not posting my shots in the wrong forum - I think the ones I put here do qualify as close ups, but not macro in the way you and others produce such stunning detail. Composition, colour and use of natural light are more important to me, but people here have been so very friendly and helpful...so unless you tell me to go elsewhere ;)
Click to expand...

Relax Emma. It is after all the "Macro and Close-up" forum. If you haven't seen it, have a look at the Flower Power thread. That ran for over a year and more than 17 pages.

I think the sort of images you create, like the ones I've seen on Flickr recently, would be super to see here.

Botanical images don't by and large get as much response as invertebrates, but there are some of us who are very keen on them. I don't post many here because of the emphasis on invertebrates. I'd be very happy to see botanical images, and colour, texture, composition and natural light, playing a larger part in this forum, and contributing to that, so I'd love to see more of your images here.
 
Last edited:
GardenersHelper said:
Thanks Chris.



. I have a terrible time with shiny bodies. I may put some shiny body images up at Flickr, which is a bit of a dumping ground for me, but I rarely post them here. The ants in this album at Flickr are an example of that. So by and large in posts here you only get to see the images I am most comfortable with (and some of them, well quite a lot actually, have infelicities in the lighting that I wish were not there).

Also bear in mind that some of the light distribution (and also the apparent sharpness) is the result of things I do in post processing.

So the illumination is important, in fact very important IMO. But it is only part of the story.
Click to expand...
I think shiny bodies are a problem for most people, me included. A flickr search for ants seems to confirm that to me.
 
Last edited:
davholla said:
I think shiny bodies are a problem for most people, me included. A flickr search for ants seems to confirm that to me.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reassurance David. I'm sure you are right and I should relax a bit about it, but I can't seem to help myself - I have this nagging feeling that surely it must be possible to do better, and that "surely no one is going to be interested in looking at that". I suspect physics says otherwise about what is possible, and the problem with posting or not lies in my head not in other people's reactions. Maybe I'll give it go with some ants and see how it goes. Thanks again David.
 
GardenersHelper said:
Thanks for the reassurance David. I'm sure you are right and I should relax a bit about it, but I can't seem to help myself - I have this nagging feeling that surely it must be possible to do better, and that "surely no one is going to be interested in looking at that". I suspect physics says otherwise about what is possible, and the problem with posting or not lies in my head not in other people's reactions. Maybe I'll give it go with some ants and see how it goes. Thanks again David.
Click to expand...

I think it is possible in studio conditions but tricky although I have done it but then again I don't have space for studio in my house.
Under field conditions not sure. I don't like in my photos e.g. which otherwise would be ok or even good - see here.
EF7A1685ant by davholla2002, on Flickr
 
davholla said:
I think it is possible in studio conditions but tricky although I have done it but then again I don't have space for studio in my house.
Under field conditions not sure. I don't like in my photos e.g. which otherwise would be ok or even good - see here.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have the same reaction to that sort of highlight. Mine tend to be larger areas rather than lines, but they are just as, and sometimes more, off-putting to my eye. I do get lines as well though. This sort of thing.


0982 19 2016_09_20 P1070951_DxO RAW 01a SP7 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top