Bug images experiment

[monty3777 0]

Second stone is awesome.

[Will Milne 0]

FlyingPhotographer-

 

I,ve done the camera in aquarium thing - for underwater landscapes mainly- with very mixed sucess.

 

I appreciate the kind words, though I have seen aquatic insects done this way- in fact the micro aquarium idea came from Robert Thompsons work-

 

http://www.robertthompsonphotography.com/Page%2014.htm

 

and more generally my interest in doing much of this macro type work has come from seeing this work a few months ago-

 

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5972520

and this

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5977406

 

so I,m following not leading:)))) and as you can see from the links I have a LONGGGGGGGG way to go.

 

One of the major problems with this stuff is the amount of post work that is needed- cleaning up backgrounds and water borne debris. I need to really work on this as my skills are crude at best. .

 

Will

 

 

[Will Milne 0]

Couple more-

 

First has some back lighting to try and get some translucency in places- I kinda like this muted look/quiet drama- though I sense I am alone:))-

 

 

This one is your basic ento/tying type thing-

 

 

 

All these images are approx 90% of the original files with a lens that goes to 1:1 - I have a bellows on the way:))))))))) weeeeeeehah larger than life size:)))).

 

Will

 

 

 

[Vito1 0]

Will, that stonely is best nymph photo I've ever seen.

I stand corrected. The second stonefly photo is the best I've ever seen. Amazing.

[FlyTyingPhotographer 0]

Thanks for the links and the info. Will. Robert Thompsons work is amazing. Your latest stonefly looks fantastic. Great details. Whether you're the first doing this or not really doesn't matter. Your work looks great and is inspirational to others. There's still very few people doing this kind of work. Anyway, I've never tried extension tubes or a bellows before. I'd really like to get a 1:1 macro. My best macro zooms up until now have been 1:3 and 1:4. I bought a 1:2 Tamron macro on Ebay a few months ago that I haven't had a chance to try yet.

Here's a shot of a Carpenter Bee that I did with a Yashica 75-200mm 4.5-5.6 macro zoom lens. It has a 1:4 manification ratio. I was either using a +4 Tiffen diopter or a Vivitar 2X tele with this shot. I don't remember. I know I tried both that day seperately and in combination. The problem with diopters is that you have a very narrow depth of field when using something like a +4.

 

http://robvalineimages.com/-/robvalineimag...15&cat=9818

[tyrite 0]

a Fly tyer I am always liking for some good realistic photos and they are really good. Nice job! :headbang:

[Wulff 0]

Fly tyer.

Whether you use diopters, TCs, Tubes, or reversed 50s your DoF gets increasing thin. A 1:1 macro is extremely thin with just the bare lens. Addd a TC or Tubes and its getting thinner. Add a reversed 50 and its even thinner.

 

At a certain point you *have* to balance your desired magnification against the *required* DoF for the subject.

 

Example.

With a 1:1 macro, focal lengths immaterial you get 1:1. The only difference is working distance and your DoF is razor thin.

 

Add 60mm in Tubes and while you've increased your magnification but porportinately decreased your DoF and MDF.

 

Add a reversed 50 and youve increased your magnification yet again and yet again porporionately decreased your DoF.

 

So with my 180mm 1:1 and 60mm in tubes and a reversed 50 I could shoot mites and tics and show every gory detail. But then again its doubtful the available DoF will capture anything more. So with a Stonefly for example I could shoot one of its eyes and have that eye putting a cyclops to shame, thats all Id have in focus if that (the entire eye).

 

Conversely you could save all the add ons and just get Canons MP65. It offers everything from 1:1 to 5:1 with just the bare lens. The problem is its really only good for tiny stuff, smaller than ants stuff.

 

if you want to see some sick, sick macro work I could point you to a few shooters work.

 

Will I should email you to brainstorm a bit. Ive developing some ideas todo some similiar stuff and Im putting a shopping list together to add to my macro arsenol. Everything from flash brackets and a focus rail ( all from RRS ).

 

Oh and speaking of post work..

I hate cleaning up dust specs nothing like Macro to make you realise just how filthy your sensor is

 

Nice work Will.

[Will Milne 0]

Glad folks are enjoying the pics- keeps me thinking I'm doing something usefull-ahhh the delusions or perks of working in somewhat isolation:)))

 

John ---I was out yesterday -looking at some of my spots- in particular a flats area where you can see Hex. Limbata burrows and night trails . I was scouting for the upcoming emergence and working out some strategies to deal with the hatch. I have a fully field portable studio, that sets up in 5 mins, plus a field portable micro aquarium that sets up in the same time , both flash lit. So I think I can bring a very controlled system into play, thats what all that fly pattern mucking around was about a while back and some of these new images are the result of - testing out things for the real deal:)) Where I feel weak is with a setup that lets me "run and gun" during the hatch without the need of tripods/etc etc . The stonefly hatch I ran into a few days ago was a good example of running into a situation that required a very fast response, the opportunities were over in seconds......... I ended up collecting some bugs and taking them back to the studio streamside to get the shots, but I did'nt have the chops to get the stones flittering off the ice flows and across the water to the bank- types of images I would dearly like to get. There are many images we DON'T see IMHO because they really require some dedicated attention and carefull equipment selection and tuning to capture. I have sat and watched caddis popping out of the miniscus/mayflies dropping eggs/etc etc . Capturing those dynamic events is very much my goal with all this exploration:)) I'd love to swap notes so feel free to email away- my sig has contact info.

 

Your comments with respect to macro are very appropos. It really is, like a lot of things in photography a "gain here/lose there" scenario. I guess one has to make decisions about where you are willing to lose for what you want to gain and balance that out in relation to what kind of images you hope to make .

 

If you are looking at RRS stuff- I have a RRS BH55 tripod head and it is nothing short of brilliant, beautifully engineered and thought out. I can only assume their other stuff is up to the same standards.

 

Will

[Wulff 0]

Heres what Im thinking about Will. I lookd hard at the Wimberly and RRS systems. Both are really good but RRS just seems to be a sturdier and b more flexible (add ons)

 

87B bracket.

http://reallyrightstuff.com/flash/02.html

Big enough that I can also use with my 400mm to get the flash off the body when wildlife shooting to avoid redeye.

 

Possibly a second flash mount and 2 extrenders and I can have this

Scroll half way down, theres an image of a guy using a 180mm f3.5 and duo heads

http://reallyrightstuff.com/flash/05.html

 

Possibly the focus rail

http://reallyrightstuff.com/macro/02.html

 

And whatever plates and clamps I need and yeah their Ball head is on my list to.Tubes over a reverse 50, save that for somewher down the road. But I need to make sure it what I want/need as their stuff is god awful expensive. ( BH-55 )

******

 

Streamside I cant decide if I want to go the Tripod (focus rail ) route or try mounting it all on my Bushhawk. One thing I want to try doing for sure is getting Mayflies in flight....Bushhawk + 400 + 25mm to 50mm in tubes might do it.

 

What I need to do is give more thougt to what your doing. A metod to collect and then have a mini aquarium/lighting nearby or build a nice mini studio in the basement. Last year didnt go as well I had hoped. Been thinking about finding/buying one of the larger butterfly nets to help collect and have thought about everything from a small cooler to a screen type terraium similiar to what pet stoes sell for geckos and the like...kind of a mix between a terrarium and a light box.

 

[Will Milne 0]

John - the next couple of days has me installing a new window in my bathroom.

 

 

I'll take some pics of my rigs I have a few variations you may find usefull.

 

In the meantime- since we talking about making run and gun images during hatches- if this does,nt get you inspired - what will:)))))))

 

http://www.hatches.tv/play.php?vid=258

 

 

Jose , the kids and I justed watched this- astonishing- bring it on our Hex and Epheron albom hatches can make that one look sparse:)))))))))

 

Will

[Wulff 0]

Oh Man do I ever live in the wrong location.

 

/cry

 

[FlyTyingPhotographer 0]

Thanks for the video link Will. Good stuff. The Hex hatch here in Pa. is pretty good. Getting back to the macro discussion, I'd just like to get my hands on a 1:1 macro. I've been using zooms with diopters and/or tele's and it's not quite the same. At least with a real macro you have smaller aperture settings which increase depth of field somewhat. For example F32 as compared to F16 or 22. I shot weddings for 7 or 8 years. But, never did any serious macro work. I am very interested though because I've been fly fishing since I was 12 and would like to shoot some of the insects in my area. Keep up the good work guys.

[Will Milne 0]

Flyty_

 

My own macro lens is a 105mm f2.8 VR Nikon - for me a dedicated fixed focal length macro lens is really the best option in terms of image quality. Zoom adds flexibilty but at a cost. Macro scale work is very demanding optically, so the dedicated lens was really the best option.

 

105 mm was the shortest lens I considered- simply because I knew I wanted to work with flash and wanted the working distance to be able to pump light in. 150 would be nice and 200 very nice.

 

My other macro/closeup lens is a 300 mm f2.8 AF nikon with a PN-11 extension tube . Nice for butterflies/hathces/dragonflies/depth compression ect. Drawback is you lose infinity focus , actually the lens with tube focuses from about 4' to around 6 or so feet so the range is limited but the ability work at that distance with close to macro scale - close up work rather than macro- is nice.

 

hope that helps.

 

Will

[chrisfish 0]

Great job Will. Your approach is spot on!! beautifull pic's

[FlyTyingPhotographer 0]

Thanks for the info. Will. I have a 90mm Tamron Macro that I picked up on Ebay a few months back. I haven't used it yet. It's an older model. I believe it's a 1:2. But, It's probably better than what I've been using. I'll post photos after I try it out if I get anything decent.