Dolichovespula maculata - Baldfaced Hornet

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:09 pm

First and third with Canon 65mm MPE. Second with Nikon 4X Plan Achromat.

Barry · Post by **Barry** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:49 pm

Nice pictures!
What a beautiful colour pattern on its head...

Regards, Barry

seta666 · Post by **seta666** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:14 am

beautiful series, very clean output.
How do you find the MPE vs the 4/0.13?
Regards

sonyalpha · Post by **sonyalpha** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:15 am

This is a beautifully sharp set:

I am fascinated by wasp and hornet jaws, they look so powerful...........................looking at these it could be that he has damaged the darker one?.....................or................is has it just got dirty?

FUJI

jotafoto · Post by **jotafoto** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:34 am

Beautiful pictures and beautiful specimen. One thing I do not understand, Charles. The second one with 4X, is a crop? On this one resolution is better, but I like the stack, and natural look of those made with the MP-E, the second one has more unsharp mask than the first and third , or so it seems. Which one do you think is better?. Thanks.
regards
Javier Replinger

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:15 am

Javier... Looking at them this morning, with rested eyes, the second one looks over-sharpened.

I haven't done a "head-to-head" comparison of the MPE and the 4/0.13 at 4X but I have the impression that they would be very close, both very good. When working with a tabletop setup, sometimes the narrow front of the 4X just makes lighting a little easier.

sonyalpha... it was "discolored " as seen, but did not appear damaged. Don't know why... didn't appear to be anything on the surface.

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:34 pm

I went back to the "master" file and did one slightly different and with less heavy-handed sharpening. Instead of replacing the shot above, I added it here so that it might be an example of the (quite subjective) line between "too much" and "adequate" sharpening. (And I'm not even sure this is the level I like best... seems lately I actually do need to get a pair of low power "reading glasses" for when I work at the computer after a long day.

)

lauriek · Post by **lauriek** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:51 am

Lovely set Charlie!

I didn't think that shot looked oversharpened at a quick glance but now comparing it to the second version the first does definitely look overdone! I tend to do the opposite and undersharpen, it's a fine line getting this just right isn't it?!

morfa · Post by **morfa** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:13 pm

Great series Charlie!

I really like the rim light in the first and third shot!

thartl · Post by **thartl** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:26 pm

just amazed everytime, lighting sets it up so there is so much depth. Great.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:34 pm

I just finished reading "Light -- Science & Magic" for the first time.

Charles' images would make good exam questions. "OK, given this picture, how did the photographer do that?"

--Rik

Craig Gerard · Post by **Craig Gerard** » Fri Sep 24, 2010 4:30 am

Rik wrote:Charles' images would make good exam questions. "OK, given this picture, how did the photographer do that?"

Rik,

Good initiative

Which images specifically, #1 and #3?

Craig

seta666 · Post by **seta666** » Fri Sep 24, 2010 3:30 pm

rjlittlefield wrote:I just finished reading "Light -- Science & Magic" for the first time.

Charles' images would make good exam questions. "OK, given this picture, how did the photographer do that?"

--Rik

Would you recomend this book?
The picture looks like there are 2 light sources (one could be a reflector)
1st bottom right and top left
2nd from above opossite sides
3rd from opossite sides

Craig Gerard · Post by **Craig Gerard** » Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:28 pm

Looking at Image # 1 and Image # 3, there has been some 'tweaking' done between shots. This observation is based on the differences in the background and the front of the hornet's face.

The front of the hornet's face is partially in shadow on the MP-E shots. This may be due to the diameter of the lense barrel and focal distance.

I suspect there may be something going on similar to the setup posted by Graham46 (link below). A modified foam cup on the front of the MP-E including the Lieberkühn Reflector component.
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=8845

As I see it, we have a 'Key' light, a 'Fill' light and a 'Back' Light (also called 'Rim' light), with ratios determined by distance from subject/diffuser/flash duration.

http://www.3drender.com/light/figures/3ptBackp.gif

http://www.3drender.com/light/figures/3ptLights.gif

However, in saying all that, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a piece of white printer paper attached to the MP-E (with a hole for the lense to poke through). The paper could be folded into three sections, one section for the lense and two other sections flanking the subject.

That is a few bites of the pie

....Now, Family of Angles.....

Craig

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Fri Sep 24, 2010 10:09 pm

Thanks all!

Pretty simple setup.

Single Vivitar 283 (this one)

Specimen mounted inside a long cylindrical diffusion tube (much like Johns yogurt bottle. But the bottom is not cut away, and instead a long slit is cut along bottom to slip the tube over the pin holding subject). The position of the flash along the top of the tube, and distance from tube determines lighting "effect".

Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) leaves as background

The flash was positioned above and aimed toward the back of the tube which gave the back-lighting effect (but angled so that there was enough "spill " hitting the front of the tube to illuminate the front of the face).