dragonfly

wez130 · 23-08-2005, 11:06

went out last week to shoot dragonflys at a nature reserve, all but this one were basically crap, all blurry and soft, but i quite like this one. couldn't get any of the emporer dragonfly coz it wouldn't rest for me.
anyway, critique away....

CT · 23-08-2005, 12:07

Wez, it's bloody good mate and the black background makes it. The problem is you seem to have critical sharpness just in the far left hand wing, so that the closer parts including his tail are oof. You'll get away with closer parts being oof if for example it was a different angle and the eyes were sharp. Here it just looks a bit unsettling because you focused on the wrong bit.

It would be so much better too, if you'd got him lower in the frame - he looks squeezed up towards the top with all that wasted space underneath.

Sorry mate, but if you post in this Critique forum you can expect to get whacked! :lol: Macro can be frustratingly difficult. What lens were you using?

CT · 23-08-2005, 12:39

See what a difference it makes when the tail is brought into sharp focus. I've also used feathered masks to sharpen other bits too including the grass, but I wouldn't advocate too much of this with macro shots as anyone knowledgable will know that DOF is limited at these distances and suspect manipulation, apart from which there's no substitiute for focusing accurately in the first place.

SammyC · 23-08-2005, 12:48

Composition is much better on the second shot there CT.

KenCo1964 · 23-08-2005, 13:16

It's hard enough trying to get a shot of something like this but, when you have to think of everthing else it makes you appreciate some of the stunning macro's others have uploaded. My initial thought was that it is too high in the frame and because it is already on the soft side, looking up as it were seemed to emphasise the softness more. Lowering in the frame and adding usm as Ct has done has improved this and makes it in reach visually. Having the subject face on (as has been pointed out on a number of occassions) would have imporoved the pic also. Just my oppinion.
Ken.

wez130 · 23-08-2005, 13:31

well, tbh, that shot is a crop from a much bigger image :P, i can recompose it and have another play with it. but like i said, my lens wasn't playing game for me on that day.
It's not a macro shot, i took that on my 75-300 canon lens.

CT · 23-08-2005, 13:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by wez130

It's not a macro shot, i took that on my 75-300 canon lens.

Then you've done really well, and the shot is definitely a stunner and a 'keeper' with a bit of work, particularly if you work on the larger image. I 'd prefer it a little lower in the frame still, but that's largely personal choice.

fingerz · 23-08-2005, 15:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by wez130

It's not a macro shot, i took that on my 75-300 canon lens.

Buh? I'm confused.

My Sigma 70-300 has a macro mode. What constitutes macro then? Or is it that your lens does have a macro mode but you weren't using it?

CT · 23-08-2005, 16:04

Fingerz. Many lenses have a 'Macro' mode it's quite common with many zoom lenses. All that happens is that when you twist the collar to the macro position, all the elements of the lens move further forward ( away from the film plane) and give a much closer closest focusing distance than lenses without the macro setting. It's highly desirable in a lens and gives you the opportunity to tackle many small things in close-up which you wouldn't be able to do without it.

It's not true Macro though, True macro means a reproduction ratio of 1:1 on the sensor or film. In other words a life sized image. A life sized image of that fly (or whatever) on the sensor gives enormous potential for detail once you start to enlarge the image. Some macro lenses are actually capable of producing a larger than life sized image on the sensor, but then it should strictly be called micro photography, but that's being picky and it hardly matters anyway.

True macro lenses are designed purely for the purpose, and are designed to give good detail - even right out to the edges of the frame, which is where 'normal' lenses tend to suffer and why they give their best (sharpest) results stopped down a little in most cases.

The other advantage is you also get a very useful lens for normal photography. My 180mm macro is also a useful, very crisp, mid range tele lens. The 'Macro' setting on lenses which aren't in fact macro lenses, is very misleading and I'm surprised manufacturers keep getting away with it. It's still a very useful feature though and excellent results can be obtained.

fingerz · 23-08-2005, 16:13

Lovely piece of clarification there. Ten out of ten. Cheers.

CT · 23-08-2005, 16:18

LOL. My pleasure. I had a 90mm macro lens once, and on a 35mm film camera it was an awesome walk around lens, being capable of Macro, medium close up shots, and it was also a bitingly sharp 'normal' 90mm lens.

fingerz · 23-08-2005, 16:23

Seeing as how I love street photography and the whole concept of capturing interesting moments, I should work on my 'walking around' collection of lenses as I've only got the kit lens (18 - 55) and the 50mm f/1.8 prime.

However, it's probably more important for me to stop being sh*t at street photography before I go spending more money on an area where I've produced zero results so far.

Matty · 23-08-2005, 20:17

i really like the shot Wez, as CT says, a bit of recomposition and you will have a cracker there, well done

23-08-2005, 11:06	#1 (permalink)
wez130 Getting Comfy Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 136	dragonfly went out last week to shoot dragonflys at a nature reserve, all but this one were basically crap, all blurry and soft, but i quite like this one. couldn't get any of the emporer dragonfly coz it wouldn't rest for me. anyway, critique away....

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Dragonfly ~ Please let me know what you think!	STARRYCHAR	Photo Sharing	13	17-11-2006 09:23
Dragonfly on the wind	rhodopsin	Photo Critique	2	18-06-2006 17:17
Dragonfly	Sonsey	Photo Critique	28	18-11-2005 17:32
dragonfly thing	dod	Photo Sharing	12	28-07-2005 10:02
Dragonfly Macro	Chez	Photo Critique	4	08-06-2005 19:14

23-08-2005, 12:07	#2 (permalink)
CT Feet under the table Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: West Mids UK Posts: 3,500	Wez, it's bloody good mate and the black background makes it. The problem is you seem to have critical sharpness just in the far left hand wing, so that the closer parts including his tail are oof. You'll get away with closer parts being oof if for example it was a different angle and the eyes were sharp. Here it just looks a bit unsettling because you focused on the wrong bit. It would be so much better too, if you'd got him lower in the frame - he looks squeezed up towards the top with all that wasted space underneath. Sorry mate, but if you post in this Critique forum you can expect to get whacked! :lol: Macro can be frustratingly difficult. What lens were you using?

23-08-2005, 12:39	#3 (permalink)
CT Feet under the table Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: West Mids UK Posts: 3,500	See what a difference it makes when the tail is brought into sharp focus. I've also used feathered masks to sharpen other bits too including the grass, but I wouldn't advocate too much of this with macro shots as anyone knowledgable will know that DOF is limited at these distances and suspect manipulation, apart from which there's no substitiute for focusing accurately in the first place.

23-08-2005, 12:48	#4 (permalink)
SammyC Forum Regular Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Bristol Posts: 1,466	Composition is much better on the second shot there CT.

23-08-2005, 13:16	#5 (permalink)
KenCo1964 Forum Regular Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Co. Durham England Posts: 1,069	It's hard enough trying to get a shot of something like this but, when you have to think of everthing else it makes you appreciate some of the stunning macro's others have uploaded. My initial thought was that it is too high in the frame and because it is already on the soft side, looking up as it were seemed to emphasise the softness more. Lowering in the frame and adding usm as Ct has done has improved this and makes it in reach visually. Having the subject face on (as has been pointed out on a number of occassions) would have imporoved the pic also. Just my oppinion. Ken.

23-08-2005, 13:31	#6 (permalink)
wez130 Getting Comfy Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 136	well, tbh, that shot is a crop from a much bigger image :P, i can recompose it and have another play with it. but like i said, my lens wasn't playing game for me on that day. It's not a macro shot, i took that on my 75-300 canon lens.

23-08-2005, 16:04	#9 (permalink)
CT Feet under the table Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: West Mids UK Posts: 3,500	Fingerz. Many lenses have a 'Macro' mode it's quite common with many zoom lenses. All that happens is that when you twist the collar to the macro position, all the elements of the lens move further forward ( away from the film plane) and give a much closer closest focusing distance than lenses without the macro setting. It's highly desirable in a lens and gives you the opportunity to tackle many small things in close-up which you wouldn't be able to do without it. It's not true Macro though, True macro means a reproduction ratio of 1:1 on the sensor or film. In other words a life sized image. A life sized image of that fly (or whatever) on the sensor gives enormous potential for detail once you start to enlarge the image. Some macro lenses are actually capable of producing a larger than life sized image on the sensor, but then it should strictly be called micro photography, but that's being picky and it hardly matters anyway. True macro lenses are designed purely for the purpose, and are designed to give good detail - even right out to the edges of the frame, which is where 'normal' lenses tend to suffer and why they give their best (sharpest) results stopped down a little in most cases. The other advantage is you also get a very useful lens for normal photography. My 180mm macro is also a useful, very crisp, mid range tele lens. The 'Macro' setting on lenses which aren't in fact macro lenses, is very misleading and I'm surprised manufacturers keep getting away with it. It's still a very useful feature though and excellent results can be obtained.

23-08-2005, 16:13	#10 (permalink)
fingerz Forum Regular Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 790	Lovely piece of clarification there. Ten out of ten. Cheers.

23-08-2005, 16:18	#11 (permalink)
CT Feet under the table Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: West Mids UK Posts: 3,500	LOL. My pleasure. I had a 90mm macro lens once, and on a 35mm film camera it was an awesome walk around lens, being capable of Macro, medium close up shots, and it was also a bitingly sharp 'normal' 90mm lens.

23-08-2005, 16:23	#12 (permalink)
fingerz Forum Regular Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 790	Seeing as how I love street photography and the whole concept of capturing interesting moments, I should work on my 'walking around' collection of lenses as I've only got the kit lens (18 - 55) and the 50mm f/1.8 prime. However, it's probably more important for me to stop being sh*t at street photography before I go spending more money on an area where I've produced zero results so far.

23-08-2005, 20:17	#13 (permalink)
Matty Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: kings hill Posts: 5,269	i really like the shot Wez, as CT says, a bit of recomposition and you will have a cracker there, well done