Roseate Skimmer (Orthemis ferruginea)

[TheFantasticG]

Roseate Skimmer (Orthemis ferruginea) from some days ago:
#1

Roseate Skimmer (Orthemis ferruginea) by The Fantastic G, on Flickr
#2

Roseate Skimmer (Orthemis ferruginea) by The Fantastic G, on Flickr
#3

Roseate Skimmer (Orthemis ferruginea) by The Fantastic G, on Flickr

Thanks for looking

 

[JoshuaSimPhotography]

I actually really like number 1, the soft light really works!

 

[TheKenTurner]

I actually really like number 1, the soft light really works!

Interesting, I prefer #3...

For the OP:
I find number one to just not have enough light. I get what you're trying to do but IMO, it just doesn't work. I'm not saying I don't like the idea/concept, but I think it could be done differently/better.

Number two and three have what I call background vomit - when the background is so blurred, it's pretty much one color and looks like it came out of someone's mouth. I would use a smaller aperture. Not to have the background in focus, but just to not have a one-color background.

For number two, I wouldn't have cropped off the wing, but it's looking good.

I really like number three. The positioning is great, object is sharp, etc... But I would have gone with a sharper background. If you use an aperture that would get the whole wing in focus, that should still give you a blurry background, but you might understand the environment the bug is in.

Sorry if you find this to be harsh, don't take it personally, I'm just saying what I thought when I saw these photos.

-Ken Turner

 

[TheFantasticG]

No problem, Ken. I can tell you though at the magnification vs distance to subject vs background distance to subject/lens I was at, there was no way the background was going to be in focus on these. It's just the nature of the beast. Even at F11 or F16 the background is still going to be incredibly out of focus. That's why in the macro world we have focus stacking, but that wasn't an option at the time. With that being said, I took artistic liberty on #1. I unintentionally shot it underexposed and I really liked the result and left it as is. I used my Nikon setup on these which offers quite a bit of working distance.

Just curious, have you used a 1:1 macro lens?

 

[TheKenTurner]

Just curious, have you used a 1:1 macro lens?

I wish I had the chance to use one. My 17-85 is only .2. My brother might have one for his D300, so maybe I'll ask him if I can play around with it! Although I can barely change any settings on the (his) camera so...

-Ken Turner

 

[MTVision]

Interesting, I prefer #3...

For the OP:
I find number one to just not have enough light. I get what you're trying to do but IMO, it just doesn't work. I'm not saying I don't like the idea/concept, but I think it could be done differently/better.

Number two and three have what I call background vomit - when the background is so blurred, it's pretty much one color and looks like it came out of someone's mouth. I would use a smaller aperture. Not to have the background in focus, but just to not have a one-color background.

For number two, I wouldn't have cropped off the wing, but it's looking good.

I really like number three. The positioning is great, object is sharp, etc... But I would have gone with a sharper background. If you use an aperture that would get the whole wing in focus, that should still give you a blurry background, but you might understand the environment the bug is in.

Sorry if you find this to be harsh, don't take it personally, I'm just saying what I thought when I saw these photos.

-Ken Turner

Why don't you like the one colored background? It isolates the subject and doesn't create a busy background. I have some macro shots of bugs that have a multi-colored background (still completely blurred) and it looks really weird. And as the OP said its almost impossible to not have the background vomit (as you call it) with macro shots. You have to use extremely small apertures just to get most of the subject/insect in focus....

 

[TheFantasticG]

Just curious, have you used a 1:1 macro lens?

I wish I had the chance to use one. My 17-85 is only .2. My brother might have one for his D300, so maybe I'll ask him if I can play around with it! Although I can barely change any settings on the (his) camera so...

-Ken Turner

I mean no offense, I was genuinly curious as I am now. Would you mind posting up some images and your experience after you get to use it? Try using it at 1:1 and 1:2 and you'll have a much greater understanding of why my images look the way they do. I always encourage anyone to try macro at least once.