Here are some of the jumpers I found this time in Mulu. Very active, and curious group of spiders. One of them reacted so much on me, that I had problems getting pics of it not always facing me.
Regards,
Christer
Salticidae
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Salticidae
Hi,
Here are some of the jumpers I found this time in Mulu. Very active, and curious group of spiders. One of them reacted so much on me, that I had problems getting pics of it not always facing me.
Regards,
Christer
Here are some of the jumpers I found this time in Mulu. Very active, and curious group of spiders. One of them reacted so much on me, that I had problems getting pics of it not always facing me.
Regards,
Christer
Hi,
and thanks!
Depends on what type of advice you are after. If you just want to see as many bugs as possible, focus on the hand rail on the walkway to Deer Cave. Other people will wonder what you are doing though : ) You might hear the following
-Ah, so what is it you have found (while looking at the forest floor).
-An ant-mimicking spider here (pointing at the rail)...
- (mumbling) ant-mimicking spider to their friends, while continuing to walk away.
Granted, walking while staring at the handrail, when the forest is all around you is a bit strange.
The disadvantage with this kind of photography is that the background doesn't look very natural.
Walked the so called Night Trail in the daytime which is nice though, as well as the longer Paku trail which passes the waterfall. Botanical Trail in the daytime didn't give me much, but it is better in the nighttime. Walked that myself to not impede on the organized night walk on the Night Trail.
Wanted to try the Pinnacle this year, but failed. Got to spend more in camp 5 though, which is a beautiful place. Approx. two hour walk from the boats to get there.
I guess the caves are more or less optional when going there. Did the Deer Cave, and Clearwater Cave last year. Few bugs inside, but mostly to admire the nice formations inside.
Try the Mulu laksa if you like little spicier food.
Anything else, just ask away. Anyone else have any tips feel free to give some input as well.
Regards,
Christer
and thanks!
Depends on what type of advice you are after. If you just want to see as many bugs as possible, focus on the hand rail on the walkway to Deer Cave. Other people will wonder what you are doing though : ) You might hear the following
-Ah, so what is it you have found (while looking at the forest floor).
-An ant-mimicking spider here (pointing at the rail)...
- (mumbling) ant-mimicking spider to their friends, while continuing to walk away.
Granted, walking while staring at the handrail, when the forest is all around you is a bit strange.
The disadvantage with this kind of photography is that the background doesn't look very natural.
Walked the so called Night Trail in the daytime which is nice though, as well as the longer Paku trail which passes the waterfall. Botanical Trail in the daytime didn't give me much, but it is better in the nighttime. Walked that myself to not impede on the organized night walk on the Night Trail.
Wanted to try the Pinnacle this year, but failed. Got to spend more in camp 5 though, which is a beautiful place. Approx. two hour walk from the boats to get there.
I guess the caves are more or less optional when going there. Did the Deer Cave, and Clearwater Cave last year. Few bugs inside, but mostly to admire the nice formations inside.
Try the Mulu laksa if you like little spicier food.
Anything else, just ask away. Anyone else have any tips feel free to give some input as well.
Regards,
Christer
Hi Carmen,
and thanks!
I would say they are around 5-8 mm.
D7100 with Tamrons latest version of the 90mm/f2.8. I use a SB-400 with Lumiquest Mini softbox. I have until this year used Manfrottos 330B flash bracket. Now I decided to try one of those c-brackets with a small Osrso FRT-03 ball head to get more options with flash placement. Aperature usually 16 or 22 when I want more DOF. Not having the proper knowledge about the basics, I have earlier set the aperature, and relied on the camera when shooting, but got so many blurry pics last year. So I read up and started to shoot manually, focusing on shutter speed (1/250). I will have to work more on diffusion, since I want less of the strong shadows behind/under the subject. Would like to be able to get more magnification too. Have had Raynox 250 for a long time, and even brought it to Borneo, but never came around to use it.
Regards,
Christer
and thanks!
I would say they are around 5-8 mm.
D7100 with Tamrons latest version of the 90mm/f2.8. I use a SB-400 with Lumiquest Mini softbox. I have until this year used Manfrottos 330B flash bracket. Now I decided to try one of those c-brackets with a small Osrso FRT-03 ball head to get more options with flash placement. Aperature usually 16 or 22 when I want more DOF. Not having the proper knowledge about the basics, I have earlier set the aperature, and relied on the camera when shooting, but got so many blurry pics last year. So I read up and started to shoot manually, focusing on shutter speed (1/250). I will have to work more on diffusion, since I want less of the strong shadows behind/under the subject. Would like to be able to get more magnification too. Have had Raynox 250 for a long time, and even brought it to Borneo, but never came around to use it.
Regards,
Christer
Esteemed Christer:
Given tiny specimen size, your work is particularly meritorious!
I appreciate how dificult it is to photograph live specimens, particullarly so small. I recently attempted to capture bees at 1x with my 100mm macro, as they pollenate -all hand held. It's not easy. I suspect perseverance is the key to success in this type of work.
Technically, I am inclined to think you are well on the road to success! The D7100 has a respectable sensor, and your lens seems pretty respectable as well. And you see that closing the lens gives more depth of field. Personally, I try to use f22 or more: I prefer the additional depth of field, even with some minor image degradation. The other thing is a shorter focal length gives more depth of field: for this reason the 50 or 60mm are popular but have less working distance.
Given the flash, brackets, difusors and such, ¿do you find your kit heavy or cumbersome after a few hours in the field?
I haven't tried it, but I understand that polarization of flash may reduce the reflections on specimen, given optimal adjustment of angles, and a linear polarization filter over your lens.
I noticed in some photos that the flash does not reach to the background, given the angle of the camera, and relatively distant background. At the risk of appearing opinionated, this gives me the impression of night. A different angle, perhaps perfectly perpendicular to specimen would provide a more uniformely even light, so as to give impression of day time. Also, given a relatively flat specimen and a perfectly perpendicular perspective, enough depth of field could be acheived to encompass entire specimen!
But I can see that the face to face, eye level, horizontal perspective with spiders is arguably more impressive. But it would seem more technically challenging to achieve its full impact potential, particularly with a live specimen.
Given tiny specimen size, your work is particularly meritorious!
I appreciate how dificult it is to photograph live specimens, particullarly so small. I recently attempted to capture bees at 1x with my 100mm macro, as they pollenate -all hand held. It's not easy. I suspect perseverance is the key to success in this type of work. Technically, I am inclined to think you are well on the road to success! The D7100 has a respectable sensor, and your lens seems pretty respectable as well. And you see that closing the lens gives more depth of field. Personally, I try to use f22 or more: I prefer the additional depth of field, even with some minor image degradation. The other thing is a shorter focal length gives more depth of field: for this reason the 50 or 60mm are popular but have less working distance.
Given the flash, brackets, difusors and such, ¿do you find your kit heavy or cumbersome after a few hours in the field?
I haven't tried it, but I understand that polarization of flash may reduce the reflections on specimen, given optimal adjustment of angles, and a linear polarization filter over your lens.
I noticed in some photos that the flash does not reach to the background, given the angle of the camera, and relatively distant background. At the risk of appearing opinionated, this gives me the impression of night. A different angle, perhaps perfectly perpendicular to specimen would provide a more uniformely even light, so as to give impression of day time. Also, given a relatively flat specimen and a perfectly perpendicular perspective, enough depth of field could be acheived to encompass entire specimen!
But I can see that the face to face, eye level, horizontal perspective with spiders is arguably more impressive. But it would seem more technically challenging to achieve its full impact potential, particularly with a live specimen.
Well, no. It does often look that way, but actually it makes no difference at the subject for the same magnification.a shorter focal length gives more depth of field
At the same "f" number, the cone from the lens to the subject is the same angle whichever lens you use, so you get the same size blur circle for the same distance away from the plane of focus. If you look at the depth of field tables for macro, focal length doesn't get a mention.
It's true that you can get a radically different "look" because the background detail is imaged bigger with the longer lens.
This is a subject which is turned over periodically and I'm not as quick as some (ie Rik) to find the previous discussions. There are similar thought processes about how sensor size plays with depth of field. It all depends what you "hold still". Ultimately we're concerned with the size of the image in the frame, and diffraction blur which is the limiting factor set by the physics. Other than some practical limitations, everything else can be changed to compensate, in a different set of equipment.
After years of seeing things from a different approach, it took me quite a while to flip the parameters around in my head
.Hi Carmen,
Weight is always an issue, but the current setup is the best I have tried yet, so I am quite happy with it. SB-400 uses two AA batteries, and the new litium ones do not only give more power, but keep the weight down as well.
I don't particularly like the "night"-look. I have been thinking of incorporating another flash in my set-up. One reason was to have two angles to eliminate the harsh shadows, but also having the option to light up the background with one of them. The increased weight, and flash compatibility (SB-400 is quite primitive) are problems that have to be solved though. Interesting about the flash polarization, haven't thought about that (thanks for the link).
When it comes to flash light I will in the future try to replicate the pic in the Fulgoromorpha topic that I posted earlier. That pic has other issues, but I am happy about how the flash light came out.
Regards,
Christer
Weight is always an issue, but the current setup is the best I have tried yet, so I am quite happy with it. SB-400 uses two AA batteries, and the new litium ones do not only give more power, but keep the weight down as well.
I don't particularly like the "night"-look. I have been thinking of incorporating another flash in my set-up. One reason was to have two angles to eliminate the harsh shadows, but also having the option to light up the background with one of them. The increased weight, and flash compatibility (SB-400 is quite primitive) are problems that have to be solved though. Interesting about the flash polarization, haven't thought about that (thanks for the link).
When it comes to flash light I will in the future try to replicate the pic in the Fulgoromorpha topic that I posted earlier. That pic has other issues, but I am happy about how the flash light came out.
Regards,
Christer
thank you for pointing out the magnification factor Chris. I believe you have just take me out of my ignorance on this matter!ChrisR wrote:Well, no. It does often look that way, but actually it makes no difference at the subject for the same magnification.a shorter focal length gives more depth of field
From experience, our 50mm lens certainly appears to provide greater depth of field than our 300mm, given both set to at f22 and focused to 1m distance. So intuitively...
But now that I reflect on the matter, the magnification would certainly be very different. For same magnification, the 50mm would need to be very close.
Yes, it makes sense. I trust that if I tested this, the DOF would be practically the same, given same magnification, diagragm and other relevant factors. and I found this Macro Depth of Field Calculator.
again, thank you for the clarification!
Last edited by Carmen on Thu Apr 02, 2015 6:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
Beautiful Fulgoromorpha! I appreciate it is not easy with live specimens in the field. Impressed by the quality of flash. I'd like to see how the flash is configured, positioned, difusors, etc...christerb wrote:BTW, true about the right angle to get better DOF. Also got this one of the same Fulgoromorpha, and more is in focus (same aperture though f16). A step in the right direction.
Christer
I'm interested in something portable for a studio quality flash in the field, but I fear it may be too cumbersome to be practical.
Last edited by Carmen on Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:50 am, edited 3 times in total.
Hi Carmen,
I used pretty much this set-up. In the night time I also had a led lamp to aid with focusing. I've seen that the flash cord can be shortened, but I sometimes I shoot with tripod, while hand-holding the flash. Also it helped when trying to attach the led lamp (which basically is a bike lamp) on the flash bracket.
It is also possible to swivel the flash bracket, so the c-shape follows the shape of the lens. Quite versatile thing.
Regards,
Christer
I used pretty much this set-up. In the night time I also had a led lamp to aid with focusing. I've seen that the flash cord can be shortened, but I sometimes I shoot with tripod, while hand-holding the flash. Also it helped when trying to attach the led lamp (which basically is a bike lamp) on the flash bracket.
It is also possible to swivel the flash bracket, so the c-shape follows the shape of the lens. Quite versatile thing.
Regards,
Christer
thank you sooo much Christerchristerb wrote:I used pretty much this set-up.
That difusor really makes a difference, at least from my non-expert point of view! On the other hand, the photo's I have seen with ring flash around the lens never quite convinced me.
For my kit I had envisioned something similar to yours: a straight bracket, like a long Arca type plate, on camera base. At sides of camera, flexible arms attach to base plate. Then, 2 mini-flashes with difusors like yours mounted on flexible arms. But I fear it may to too cumbersome to be practical.
