Ant, fly and spider

Images of undisturbed subjects in their natural environment. All subject types.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

P_T
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Ant, fly and spider

Post by P_T »

Fuzzy black ant. 5x magnification, ISO200, f/9 @ 1/160s.

Full size,
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/301 ... 8cef_o.jpg
Image

I don't know what kind of fly this is. 5x magnification, ISO200, f/9 @ 1/160s.

Full size,
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3169/301 ... 9605_o.jpg
Image

Crab spider 2x magnification, ISO200, f/10 @ 1/160s.

Full size,
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3202/301 ... cac1_o.jpg
Image

beetleman
Posts: 3578
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:19 am
Location: Southern New Hampshire USA

Post by beetleman »

beautiful insects and some nice DOF on them for the magnifaction. You did a fine job on the ant. A nice face shot.
Take Nothing but Pictures--Leave Nothing but Footprints.
Doug Breda

P_T
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by P_T »

beetleman wrote:beautiful insects and some nice DOF on them for the magnifaction. You did a fine job on the ant. A nice face shot.
Thank you beetleman. DOF is relative to the size of the insect so I can't really take credit for that. The fly and ant were simply very small.

Ken Ramos
Posts: 7208
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:12 pm
Location: lat=35.4005&lon=-81.9841

Post by Ken Ramos »

The spider in my opinion turned out really well there P_T but as for the ant and the fly, higher mags always seem to be crying out for at least a stack some frames but, again only in my opinion, enough to leave some depth of field suggested. Other than that, I would say you did a pretty good job on all three, especially the spider. :D

P_T
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by P_T »

Thanks Ken!! :D

If I could stack, I really would, but the fly and ant were live subjects and they didn't really keep still enough for a stack.

Here's a couple more still at 5x, ony this time I didn't crop them like the first ant image.

Full size
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3170/301 ... 4371_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3221/301 ... 6fc5_o.jpg
Image
Image

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

The fly has the typical, reduced antennae of the majority of Diptera but they are exceptionally long for antennae of that type. This should narrow down possibilities for its identity considerably.

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

Eric F
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:38 pm
Location: Sacramento, Calif.

Post by Eric F »

P-T,

Your fly is a species of Bactrocera, family Tephritidae. This is a large genus of fruit flies -- and many Bactrocera spp. are very serious pests of fruits.

Cyclops
Posts: 3084
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 5:18 pm
Location: North East of England
Contact:

Post by Cyclops »

Awesome ant shot!
Canon 5D and 30D | Canon IXUS 265HS | Cosina 100mm f3.5 macro | EF 75-300 f4.5-5.6 USM III | EF 50 f1.8 II | Slik 88 tripod | Apex Practicioner monocular microscope

P_T
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by P_T »

Thanks again guys!!

Eric, I was also told the same thing by someone else though the person went as far as calling it Bactrocera musae.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic