|
NTRabbit posted:I don't know how you get those amazing insect photos, I can barely keep non-moving plants in proper focus. Do you use flash?
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:18 |
|
|
NTRabbit posted:I don't know how you get those amazing insect photos, I can barely keep non-moving plants in proper focus. They still came out good. Like the other poster said, a flash and diffuser is necessary. Also I assume you're focusing manually? It was hard for me at first until I turned Focus Peaking on. If that's an option for you it's like cheating. (And also taking like 20 shots of every bug)
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 17:28
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:Do you use flash? No, I use shockwave  Drone Incognito posted:They still came out good. Thanks! I'm not using a flash, and yeah it's a manual lens, and I am using focus peaking, I just don't have the steadiest of hands. The lens is stabilised which is dealing with the lateral movement, I just tend to waver in and out a bit which is enough to throw the focus in tiny things. Next time I'll bring my big flash and diffuser, and shoot in bursts, see if that helps, cheers. The last time I tried to take a photo of a bee in a flower it tried to sting me 
NTRabbit fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Jul 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 17:55
|
|
|
Being stung is just part of the game. Somehow I've avoided being attacked by wasps but it's only a matter of time. I also don't want to give unsolicited advice. What I tend to do is sort of hold my breath and rock back and forth slowly on my heels while taking a few shots. That usually ensures at least one of the shots I take is in focus the way I want it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 21:50
|
|
|
I don't actually own a macro lens, but the Olympus 12-40 f2.8 pro I just got can focus pretty close up at 40mm (80mm ff equivalent). I tried a few shots in the garden after rain, and these were the best I came up with.  Do you guys usually use a tripod, or go hand-held? I found it really hard to keep still enough to get unblurred photos hand-held and get the focus correct, but I don't think I would've been able to get close enough with a tripod...
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 05:21
|
|
|
That's pretty neat for not even being a macro lens. I shoot handheld but the answer to getting not blurry shots is probably use a flash. All the insect photos I take are taken at 1/250 of a second since that's the fastest my flash will sync. Focusing can be a chore but I haven't had any blurry ones yet
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
Female Southern Hawker IMG_0324-Edit-2.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 12:42
|
|
|
It's been a busy summer but I've finally got some shots off the camera and uploaded. Two-marked Treehopper Adult Two-marked Treehopper and nymph with attending ant 20220525-5F9A8485.jpg Snowy planthopper? 20220622-5F9A8578.jpg Ant 20220525-5F9A8492.jpg
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 13:56
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:It's been a busy summer but I've finally got some shots off the camera and uploaded. That treehopper is so cool!  Bumblebee Tongue Clean by Aves Lux, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 09:09
|
|
|
Bringing a discussion from the discord channel here, about Macro's place as an art form, beyond Biology textbook illustrations ...and this is a perfect place to start, with jarlywarly's wonderful bumblebee that, besides checking all the technical boxes, is full of personality: from the PoV chosen to the subject's actions, this is a Great Shot. I'd also praise Graniteman's first treehopper photo: very geometric, deceptively simple, I like it a lot. Here are some photos of the most common brown butterfly I can find in my region, standing on some vine leaves. Doesn't get more dull than that! Taken with a Sigma 105 f/2.8 DG DN Macro that I just purchased, marking my return to 1:1 macro after a very long hiatus. These are not fully processed, but close enough for this discussion. They are also not stacked as I didn't have the time, so please imagine most/all of the final images having a larger DoF.            Which of these work for you? Are they textbook material? Are they Art? Are they trash? Should I and you and anyone even bother taking photos like these? Why/why not?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:43
|
|
|
I really enjoy looking at macro shots that are super zoomed in like that. Seeing details of something you'd never see otherwise just blows my mind every time. I've just been using a super zoom for everything close up, and I'd like to move into doing shots like those with an actual macro lens. However, I often wonder how close are people getting to these insects? I can get within 3' for my current zooms, but I'd be hard pressed to get much closer if I needed. Is it just harder overall where 9 out of 10 will simply fly away once you move closer than 3'? Is a diffused flash mandatory? I tried watching a video on it, but the dude was smacking a spider around to stop it from jumping and I wanted to punch my monitor and turned it off. Edit: I guess some of this was discussed above. Philthy fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Aug 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2022 03:07
|
|
|
I find flash to be mandatory as I practically always shoot at ~f/16. A long focal length macro helps immensely. I have a 180 mm macro, and I frequently add the 2x extender. This gives me plenty of working distance to get to 1x, and even 2x. Another point is the type of insect. Some don't mind you getting close. With insects that do mind you getting close, try to not approach them head-on. A lot of animals register that as a threat. Approach them indirectly, or even better, hang out at the nearest place they frequent. If you are stationary, and already there, they are more likely to not mind you at all. But even with all this, my keeper rate with macro is pretty low, 10% sounds about right with life critters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2022 03:15
|
|
|
I posted this in another forum My process is mostly like this, for bees mainly but works for other flower visitors Maintain a garden that is natural and attracts and is a home for insects mainly bees but also hoverflies, because the best quality shots are hard to do in the wild field you just want to have the environment easily accessible. Through this process and trial and error I've identified certain flowering plants have a structure that means that bees etc stay on the same areas rather than skipping flower to flower, this is basically flowers that have multiple stigma per head. This means plants like Hebe, Globe Thistle, Verbena etc. I also choose flowers that have good contrasting colours, white/blue/purple etc rather than yellow/green (I still have them for variety but prefer not to photograph on them.) Ironically the best time photograph bees etc is evenings/mornings or when the weather goes bad in summer, midday sun is hard, the insects are too active and the light is too harsh and sun highlights burn through your flash setup, you ideally want cool overcast conditions, with a moderate wind. Something like a day which starts out nice then has a cold/wet spell is great, the insects are out they get on the flowers then the temps drop so they get sluggish. I want them there and slowish but not completely inactive, its a balance because I want behaviour shots to set my work apart from the stacked dead insect crowd. I want it to be windy and cloudy as well because what I do is slowly approach a flower where a bee is slowly feeding and grab the flower they are on in one hand then rest my camera on my wrist, then move the flower and insect so it it's in focus as has the right angle, you want to be moving the subject rather than the camera as much as you can. Or I sit in place and wait and do the same thing. If its windy and overcast, they are used to the plant moving so don't notice as much when you grab it, overcast means you have no shadow to alert them. I move the subject through the DoF and rotate it so the angle gives me the eye and face in focus, I want to lay the DoF, which is ~1-2mm or less across the features of the face, ensuring the eye is in focus. Then I look for critical focus with peaking (used to just have eye it on the DSLR,) peaking is cool except the Canon overlay is too translucent and is hard to see on a black bee eye, then I take a few shots, most will be a bust, but you will get that sharp eye one in and if you are lucky and time it right a tongue or some other thing to show your bee is live and active. jarlywarly fucked around with this message at 09:56 on Aug 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2022 09:54
|
|
|
seravid posted:Bringing a discussion from the discord channel here, about Macro's place as an art form, beyond Biology textbook illustrations There’s a lot of internet arguing that goes on about what is art and what is not. I guess I’ll share my take on the “Art vs Craft” debate. I think a lot of the debate feels like insecurity over the idea that all important or valuable created things must be labeled art, which I don’t think is true. I’m on the side that art is about expression of imagination and creativity. It’s an attempt to share something about the human condition. It’s not just about the result being beautiful and skillful. The intent of the creator matters in identifying art. Craft is about execution of technical skill to create something beautiful and/or functional. Good art will usually also involve technical skill to create beauty, but it must also have the expression of creative intent and imagination, making their art a lens to view the world through their eyes. My insect photography is not art, it’s craft. I think I’m good at it, but very few of my shots are attempting to convey an emotion. I’m documenting the beauty of the natural world, and creating images that are beautiful and interesting. But beauty and interest is not art. “Not art” doesn’t mean “not good,” or “lacking merit” which I think a lot of people get hung up on. I’m also into woodworking. I have made a few pretty nice pieces of furniture. Also skillfully made and beautiful (and functional). Also adding value to my and other’s lives. Also not art. There is no artistic intent behind them. I take joy in doing things well, and for me it’s enough to do a good job creating an image, or a side table. I have made a few macro images where I did attempt to set up the image to capture a particular feeling. I’d say those are (crappy) art. I’m not saying insect macro can’t be art. But generally, every very well done images are examples of high craftsmanship and technical execution, not art. I’m an engineer by profession. The stuff I design and bring into the world is done with great care and effort and expertise, and the results can have their own kind of beauty. Economically valuable and impactful and important. Not art. Not all important and good created things must be labeled art. I’m comfortable that I can create valuable things that are not called art, and that’s totally ok. Does macro belong in a gallery? Sure. There’s nothing wrong with showing a gallery of crafts. People like and can enjoy seeing work skillfully done that they can’t replicate. Macro also shines a light on the hidden beauty of the world around us. That’s valuable. Are visitors going to leave such a gallery thinking differently about themselves, having grown as a person? Eh. I’d say probably not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2022 14:16
|
|
|
I'll contrast that very engineer-like perspective and say I absolutely think it can be art. I have never thought of myself as an artist, but it's been repeatedly insisted upon me that having an eye for the subjects, understanding what is interesting, displaying it in attention-capturing ways, and presenting it to a wider audience that would never see it otherwise does make it an art form. This becomes evident to me in the way other people react when they see prints I make. Art exists within nature, and properly documenting that can be an art of itself. I made prints and participated in an arts/crafts fair this year for the first time at the encouragement of my wife and friends, and was shocked that other people actually wanted to buy my pictures of weird bugs. Macro is all about presenting a new perspective that people don't usually see. I think it's a fools errand to get caught up in trying to define what is or is not art. It's different for everyone, and as one person you can't say whether or not the perspectives from your photography cause people to take thought where they would have before. There's really no telling what will evoke an emotion in another person.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2022 16:19
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:I'll contrast that very engineer-like perspective and say I absolutely think it can be art. I have never thought of myself as an artist, but it's been repeatedly insisted upon me that having an eye for the subjects, understanding what is interesting, displaying it in attention-capturing ways, and presenting it to a wider audience that would never see it otherwise does make it an art form. I strongly believe that there’s more to art than just being beautiful. I disagree that there is art in nature. There is certainly beauty in nature, and that beauty evokes emotion. But no art critic or theorist would claim that a sunset is itself art. A beautiful person is not art. A beautiful insect is not art. To claim otherwise says is to deny that art is anything different than beauty, which is not a position I can accept. Art is human. Art is a viewpoint, not just a view. I have spent 11 years making macro images, so there’s no argument from me that they are beautiful and worthwhile and commercially viable. And it certainly takes skill! I’ve created landscapes and wildlife photos that I do think aspire toward art. And maybe your insect photos are art because you compose them with a message and emotion in your mind and not “just” with an intent to make a pretty picture of an interesting subject (which is difficult and worthwhile in itself). Here are a couple of images I took that aspire to art. They try to not just document the beauty of the insect, but impose an emotion and perspective that wasn’t present in the subject. Not they they are good art, or even better photos than others, but they have emotional content and a viewpoint that the photographer added, or tried to add, to the frame. https://www.flickr.com/photos/93703706@N07/46883106885/in/datetaken/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/93703706@N07/42475780411/in/datetaken/ I believe there is such a thing as art theory, and that art criticism is a valid field. I disagree that it’s a fool’s errand to define art. Art supports and rewards deep thought. People who like or make or buy beautiful things don’t necessarily know, or have ever read or thought deeply about, what is the difference between art and craft. There have been many books and papers written on these topics, and not by fools. I reject anything that leans further into the “death of expertise” in the US. We have an extremely niche hobby in this thread, and I don’t want to be rude to “my people” here because we surely have much more in common than not and I’d love to meet you all some day. I’ll just leave it here because I really don’t want to upset anybody in this tiny niche community of people with a shared oddball interest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2022 17:23
|
|
|
Very timely discussion. I picked up a book on the history of photography in France. The main subject that was fought at the very beginning was if photography could be considered as art. At first, no, because anyone can do it. However, anyone can also use a pencil or paintbrush as well. When photographers started making surreal images by playing with light, then it was decided if images that looked like paintings would be art. But hang on, what about those images where they were doing solarization? They didn't look like paintings, and they weren't straight images from a camera. Long story short, anything and everything can be considered art. It's not up to the artist to define it, it's up the any one person to decide it. You could be looking at a black square on a wall and you may get 50 people who think nothing of it, 40 people who appreciate it as art, and maybe 10 who might be truly inspired. Everything is art. If I saw a macro gallery, I would likely leave inspired. It would be art, even if the photographer didn't think so. I would likely want to hang something on my wall and admire it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2022 17:37
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:I strongly believe that there’s more to art than just being beautiful. I disagree that there is art in nature. There is certainly beauty in nature, and that beauty evokes emotion. But no art critic or theorist would claim that a sunset is itself art. A beautiful person is not art. A beautiful insect is not art. To claim otherwise says is to deny that art is anything different than beauty, which is not a position I can accept. Art is human. Art is a viewpoint, not just a view. I respect your PoV, and I think the fact that it differs from mine kinda proves the point that art is different things to different people. I also don't think you're giving yourself enough credit by thinking of photography as simply presenting something that already exists- it takes skill, talent, intent, and often luck to get an evocative, interesting photograph. Something inspired you to take a photograph, maybe that photograph inspires someone else. I'm personally not a fan of putting the definition of "art" into small boxes with specific meanings. People are too varied and complex and the feelings evoked by different people make it hard to tell someone "that isn't art". I say "fools errand" just as a figure of speech, it's my own personal opinion there, no rudeness or offense meant or taken! I just don't like the idea that, just because someone hasn't sat down and thought hard about why a certain photo/object/craft touches them, that it can't necessarily be taken as art. I've had this conversation with my wife, who has a masters in art, and her explanation was similar to what Philthy said above. They put a lot better than me. Art discussions always seem to have a lot of opinion involved, and I don't think you were rude at all. Folks in this thread have always been tremendously helpful and I really enjoy your photos!
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2022 18:01
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:I respect your PoV, and I think the fact that it differs from mine kinda proves the point that art is different things to different people. I also don't think you're giving yourself enough credit by thinking of photography as simply presenting something that already exists- it takes skill, talent, intent, and often luck to get an evocative, interesting photograph. Something inspired you to take a photograph, maybe that photograph inspires someone else. I'm personally not a fan of putting the definition of "art" into small boxes with specific meanings. People are too varied and complex and the feelings evoked by different people make it hard to tell someone "that isn't art". My point is absolutely not to say that photography can't be art! Photography of course can be. I have many books on art and photography. I'm just trying to say that art is about creative intent, not method, or product. Art is presenting a viewpoint, not creating a work. A black square on a wall, created by an artist, is art. Art requires an artist. A black square on a wall formed by a brick accidentally falling out is not art, even if it forms an inspiring and evocative composition. I agree with Philthy that anything can be art, but not everything IS art. I don't think all created things are art even if they are inspiring and beautiful, unless they are created by a human mind to share a view of their inner or outer world. Cartier-Bresson created art through his photography, even though he was photographing "found" subjects that appeared in front of him. He brought intentionality to the specific moment he chose because he was capturing an emotion and an energy. If a tourist had taken a snapshot of another moment from the same vantage it would not have been art because it lacked the intentionality. I think that's true for all art photography. Where I am trying not to be rude is that I am ultimately claiming that what most of us are sharing here, most of the time, is not art. Which is probably inherently offensive to someone who thinks they are creating art. I just want to be very clear that I don't think created works have to be art in order to be beautiful and valuable. I wouldn't have done this for 11 years if I thought otherwise. And I recognize that there is nuance. In general, I would say that an image that is "just a pretty picture" is not art. But sometimes a person taking "pretty pictures" without creative intentionality can't help but infuse their world-view into them in a way that elevates them to art, because you aren't just seeing the thing that the photographer saw, but you are seeing the way that the photographer saw it. You are seeing the world through their eyes, which is how I would define art. I can imagine that maybe insect macro is something you would view in that way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
Good points and well articulated, I get what you're saying about intent. There's a whole long conversation to be had about intent but this probably isn't the place, but I appreciate your posts and thoughts on it! I haven't posted any bugs in a while so to contribute, have some lower-quality versions of images I ripped from my IG to share:  Jumper on green by Kevin Long, on Flickr Leucospis Affinis by Kevin Long, on Flickr Leafcutter Bee by Kevin Long, on FlickrI like the last one because of the little mite I noticed popping out of the petals when I went it edit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2022 20:57
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:I haven't posted any bugs in a while so to contribute, have some lower-quality versions of images I ripped from my IG to share: This is my jam. And so is this one: Graniteman posted:Here are a couple of images I took that aspire to art. They try to not just document the beauty of the insect, but impose an emotion and perspective that wasn’t present in the subject. Not they they are good art, or even better photos than others, but they have emotional content and a viewpoint that the photographer added, or tried to add, to the frame. Went out again today looking for inspiration, with this discussion in mind. It seems I no longer enjoy very high magnifications. The closer you get, the less room there is to say... anything, really. When the subject fills most of or even the entire frame, you can no longer show its place in the world and how it interacts with its surroundings, you're only showing your technical mastery and the wonder of Nature's work. Which is a lot! Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy those photos. I just don't want to take them anymore. Here's what I came up with today. I'll leave the "is it art?" question out of it and just say that it's at least a more personal photography, with meaningful choices regarding composition, DoF and perspective and I had fun doing it.        I'm also noticing that I'm clearly behind the times regarding diffusers... Any suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 01:47
|
|
|
Those are great. Absolutely love the jumper with the pink reflective coloring. I feel you on not being as interested in the super-close stuff these days. It's extremely cool, but I've realized I'm more into the larger picture, seeing the whole pose. Different strokes for different folks. Most people will say to DIY a diffuser but honestly I suck poo poo at crafty stuff. I follow MKdiffuser on IG and bought one he makes, it's sturdy, comes apart easily enough, and includes a built in rechargeable LED behind the white screen if you're trying to do some ambient light sorta stuff, I've never bothered. Fingers McLongDong fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Aug 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 04:01
|
|
|
seravid posted:I'm also noticing that I'm clearly behind the times regarding diffusers... Any suggestions? I'm one of the crafty DIY people. Here's a shot of my latest setup  Macro field equipment, July 2021and inside:  Macro field equipment, July 2021The rest of the album has more examples of earlier setups. https://www.flickr.com/photos/93703706@N07/albums/72157657582137811/with/51327599647/ I'm a "more diffusion is more better" person, so I skew toward heavier, bulkier, more expensive setups if they give me more diffusion. I've built or bought many different setups over the years that make different trade offs. The thing to remember with diffusion is that what matters is the angular size of the light source: how much of the "sky" does the light source fill. It can be bigger to fill more of the angle around the subject, or it can be closer. Both of those increase the amount of angle the light source covers. My setup is pretty close to being in-frame of the image a lot of the time, and it wraps down on the sides of the lens. It's on a friction arm so I can adjust the angle freely during use, which adds weight but also flexibility. Another factor is that you usually want your light source further back from your diffusion medium. If you point a flashlight at the wall from six inches away, it makes a small spot on the wall. If you step backward from the wall, the spot gets bigger (and fainter). To avoid hot spots off light in your diffuser, you should set your light source back from the diffuser. Or, at least be aware that this can cause hot spots if you configure it wrong, which gives you specular highlights as if you had less of a diffuser. In my setup linked above, the flash head I'm using has interchangeable bulbs, and I'm using an omnidirectional bulb head, so light is bouncing from the white interior of the hood just as much as from the bulb itself. You can test your setup for hot spots by photographing your setup in a mirror so you can capture how even the light is when the flash is firing. Another advantage of my current setup is that it supports off-camera use. It's mounted to the tripod collar of my lens with an arca quick release. I can unclip and and hold it in my off hand as a diffused softbox. There are some great creative opportunities when using a softbox like this, even if you usually wish you had three hands to make the best use of it. Some back / side illuminated examples:  Tree salamander 20150808-HA4A8673.jpg Leaf cutter ants CrysalisSo, my setup is kind of one extreme of how you can do it. At one point I also had a second friction arm mounted underneath with a tiny flash that would add rim lights from below or behind the subject while attached to the camera. That was ... too much. If I need that now I'll put a gorillapod with an optical triggered flash somewhere around the subject. You can also get excellent results with something as simple as attaching a sheet of tracing paper / vellum to the lens so it sticks up in the air and attaching it to your flash gun with a stick and velcro or something. You just want it to take up as much space around your subject as you reasonably can.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 21:03
|
|
|
Excellent write-up (that should go in the OP) and that setup is inspired. Never thought about using flashes like the AD200 for macro, I already wanted one and you just gave me another reason to. I also love the option to go off-camera. Good tip about shooting at a mirror, too, I used to do that. Most people ignore hot spots. I should've mentioned I've been making DIY diffusers since '08. Only pic I could find on short notice was this marvel:  Pseudo-ring flash for 4:1, circa 2010. It worked... okay. Very compact, like all my diffusers, which is why I was asking for suggestions. Have to make a change but, due to the environments I shoot in, I always felt like one of those monster-sized contraptions would surely get stuck 5 minutes in or bang on a nearby branch and introduce vibrations/scare the subject away. But what the hell, let's give it a shot:   It doesn't look like it, but there's a rigid structure under all that foil, don't worry. Issue 1: too conspicuous. Issue 2: even set to 24mm and with a considerable distance between the flash head and the diffusing material, there's a hot spot. Not too bad, but I'll have to place a second layer to get rid of it. That'll really increase the power demand, though.  (100% crop)
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 22:35
|
|
|
 Kleine Zonnedauw by roland luijken, on FlickrI like the old lenses this one is made with the Super takumar 1:4/50 Macro
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
Lunch time    
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 04:45
|
|
|
Top drawer!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 08:12
|
|
|
Amazing!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
Thank you! I'm being much more picky with my subjects, now. I've only shot like four flies all week! Still need to work on the diffuser, though. The light's a little too hard and the mirror test confirms it's coming mostly from the top half.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2022 17:31
|
|
|
really nice stuff!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 04:00
|
|
|
I've posted this before I think, but I use 2 diffusers on my mt-24 ex Last photo taken with it  Striped mosquito by Marc, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 06:06
|
|
|
Raikyn posted:I've posted this before I think, but I use 2 diffusers on my mt-24 ex I was actually looking at flashes, give a rest to my old F58AM that's overheating now that I've fixed my diffusion issue. How's the weight with twins? Isn't it too front-heavy?  Thinking about Godox. The transmitter being sold separately is annoying, but as I'm planning to buy one of their flashes and/or lamps later on, I'd have to get one anyway. What bothers me is weight distribution and distance to subject. Not of that six-headed monstrosity, just the basic 2-unit kit. As they're independent flashes, all the weight is up there, battery and all; and that seems very close to the subject to properly diffuse. Then again, that mosquito looks great, so I guess it's doable. Meanwhile, have some flies :    (I suppose mites have to eat too, but drat)
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 23:57
|
|
|
They might be phoretic mites just hitching a ride. In that case he's not food he's just... a bus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 02:25
|
|
|
The Red Queen posted:They might be phoretic mites just hitching a ride. In that case he's not food he's just... a bus. Could be, but I don't know... Healthy flies keep themselves impeccably groomed. Not a speck of dirt on them, usually.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 04:03
|
|
|
I managed to get a somewhat decent setup going after some trial and error    Sigma 24-70 EX with 2 stops of extension tubes and lit with a canon 430ex ii
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 06:04
|
|
|
I found my Raynox super macro thing (it's all busted and the clips that hold it to the lens just fly off if you're not careful with it) and bought a cheap diffuser. Then I bothered my cat and a spider. It's the Canon 100/2.8 and a 430ex on a 90D otherwise.     
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
Nice, macro, the only way to really know how dirty your sensor is Leafcutter on Globe Thistle by Aves Lux, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 22:05
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:Nice, macro, the only way to really know how dirty your sensor is Aw yeah, poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 22:08
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:Nice, macro, the only way to really know how dirty your sensor is Excellent
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:18 |
|
|
 20220811-_MG_5090 by wallofinsanity, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 23:06
|
|
