Ambush Bug Stack
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:52 pm
- Location: Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
Ambush Bug Stack
Model = Canon EOS-1D Mark II N
Exposure Time = 1/200"
F Number = F16
Exposure Program = Manual
ISO Speed Ratings = 100
Metering Mode = Spot
Flash = Flash fired, compulsory flash mode
Focal Length = 150mm + 3 Tubes + Reversed 50/1.8
Color Space = sRGB
Exposure Mode = Manual exposure
Tripod
Mirror Lockup
Remote Shutter Release
3 Flash Units
22 Frames Stacked with CombineZP
Capturer of God's Creations.
There is a fine line between a hobby and mental illness.
There is a fine line between a hobby and mental illness.
- rovebeetle
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 4:21 am
- Location: Vienna, Austria
- Contact:
- Planapo
- Posts: 1583
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:33 am
- Location: Germany, in the United States of Europe
Indeed an outstanding picture of a great looking bug. The best photo of an ambush bug that I´ve seen so far. Their ornate armour always reminds me of Roman gladiators or mediaeval knights.
As David, I´ve also been impressed with your technical excellence for a long time now, and what you achieve with two lenses mounted together, Jody.
There is one thing, IMHO and I hope you don´t mind, that could improve even this great photo a little. It´s concerning the partly OOF antenna that crosses the eye. For my personal taste that could have been bent in another direction.
When alive these little "monsters" often hold their antennae pointing forward, or tucked away backwards into that groove you can see nicely in your picture. (It´s that groove starting at the base of the antenna and then running in about 2 o'clock direction along under the funny "red lamp" ocellus and then extending onto the thorax).
These were two natural positions of the antennae that would avoid covering the eyes. Just my personal opinion.
--Betty
As David, I´ve also been impressed with your technical excellence for a long time now, and what you achieve with two lenses mounted together, Jody.
There is one thing, IMHO and I hope you don´t mind, that could improve even this great photo a little. It´s concerning the partly OOF antenna that crosses the eye. For my personal taste that could have been bent in another direction.
When alive these little "monsters" often hold their antennae pointing forward, or tucked away backwards into that groove you can see nicely in your picture. (It´s that groove starting at the base of the antenna and then running in about 2 o'clock direction along under the funny "red lamp" ocellus and then extending onto the thorax).
These were two natural positions of the antennae that would avoid covering the eyes. Just my personal opinion.
--Betty
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
I think the colour contrasts with the subject fine, I just don't like the particular shade of green, it might be that it's a bit unnatural! It's a great shot though, whatever the background colour!
Jody, out of interests (thought brought up by comments in a non related thread over at FM) - do your output stacks look sharp at full res? I'm just trying to work out if you suffer from diffraction due to the quite small apertures you use, or if the 35mm sized sensor is big enough to use those apertures without diffraction!!
Jody, out of interests (thought brought up by comments in a non related thread over at FM) - do your output stacks look sharp at full res? I'm just trying to work out if you suffer from diffraction due to the quite small apertures you use, or if the 35mm sized sensor is big enough to use those apertures without diffraction!!
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23626
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
It's important to consider that f-numbers don't work the same way with stacked lens setups as they do with a simple lens on bellows....quite small apertures...
If you get 3X by simple extension, then marked f/16 becomes effective f/64. But if you get 3X by stacking a 50 mm lens in front of a 150 mm lens, then marked f/16 (on the 150) is still effective f/16.
It's the same principle that you don't lose light when using closeup lenses, but you do with extension tubes or bellows.
Life gets more complicated when you combine both stacked lenses and some extension, but in general, the effective f-number will be a lot closer to the marked f-number whenever you have stacked lenses.
Given his setup, Jody's f-numbers will not produce nearly as much diffraction as you might expect based on experience with bellows systems.
--Rik
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23626
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Right, that's why I said "marked f/16 (on the 150)". Usually people stop down the rear lens because that approach plays better with auto diaphragms and has less risk of vignetting. With some combinations, it works better to stop down the front lens, in which case the rules change and f/16 on the front at 3X becomes more like f/48 effective. Things can also get weird if the lenses have significant pupillary magnification factors.
The important point, I think, is to stay aware that "f-numbers" mean different things in different situations. We've read before, for example, that some Nikon systems treat the camera setting as the desired effective f-number and set the lens accordingly based on focus distance, while Canons generally treat the camera setting as the nominal lens f-number (at infinity focus) and let the effective f-number change as it will due to extension.
On any particular system, it's generally true that f/16 means half the aperture diameter of f/8.
But a setting of "f/16" on system X can mean something very much different from "f/16" on system Y.
--Rik
The important point, I think, is to stay aware that "f-numbers" mean different things in different situations. We've read before, for example, that some Nikon systems treat the camera setting as the desired effective f-number and set the lens accordingly based on focus distance, while Canons generally treat the camera setting as the nominal lens f-number (at infinity focus) and let the effective f-number change as it will due to extension.
On any particular system, it's generally true that f/16 means half the aperture diameter of f/8.
But a setting of "f/16" on system X can mean something very much different from "f/16" on system Y.
--Rik