couple of insect shots

[rogprov]

Sony a700 and Sony 100m macro lens.

[Jonathan K]

Very beautiful shots. Highly enjoyable.
I found that the combination A700 + 100 Macro works wonderfully (if it doesn't backfocus). Generally I found that the A700 renders the greens in a very nice way... So macro photography is a pleasure (not being scientific here, but I found that the A700 has more trouble to render a blue sky beautifully than a bunch of flowers... Maybe David knows why?)

Jonathan

[Dr. Harout]

Nice shots but I would've played with the levels a bit, I think they are too light (but not 'high key')

[David Kilpatrick]

In this case I think Rog's shots have a high art value content. They would be more likely to succeed at an Associate or Fellowship level in formal judging, and the distinctive colour and tonal palette is part of that, along with the square crop. As an editor I would be interested in those shots, and I am not interested in most insect/flower shots because of lack of design values. For once, the clean and minimal nature of the composition and the background tones gives these a higher than normal design content - so they get a very positive vote from me.

David

[Javelin]

I like them too there not usuall bee shots for sure. and I like sonolta's second shot but I think the bee should be a tiny bit lower in the frame

[David Kilpatrick]

There are different requirements for images. If I was a textbook editor - which many US buyers are, it's a big market there - I would buy Don's natural-looking image with the pollen on legs detail. If I was a greetings card publisher, I would pick Rog's dog daisy and hoverfly any day as an image with a pure design appeal often absent in natural history shots. It would never sell for a textbook or a natural history magazine, where Don's would, as it is too consciously composed and cropped to emphasize the composition; but it would sell for other markets for exactly those qualities.

I've learned over 35 years of editing, and working with art editors, that you need to shoot in many modes and styles to satisfy all markets. In the 1970s I was privileged to have my landscape used for the Minolta calendar, and their lens boxes (remember those boxes with the photos on?). When one of my slides was returned from the calendar (1976? 77? - I have no copy remaining) included with it was the Japanese art director's tracing of the slide. I had composed a shot using a strong snow scene with a drystone wall and a stone barn and a silhouetted tree. The Japanese eye almost ignored these elements. What the art director had traced was the pattern of shadows on the snow and the shape of bare marsh grass tufts standing out from it - they had picked my image for details I would have overlooked, and ignored the 'crude' compositional impact I had shot it for.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

But don't let on, Don, how small the pixel count was (or the camera) for those early shots!

It's a peculiar dilemma - I used a Casio back five or six years ago which focused 1cm from the lens. And there was the Minolta - I forget the model number - with a detachable lens on a cable, including an optional wide-angle module. I used it inside doll's houses and inside guitars. But... it was 1.3 megapixels or something!

David

[rogprov]

Thanks for the comments guys. These shots are part of a larger collection of the insect inhabitants of a small area of the Cotwolds in Gloucestershire … my garden. I’m well aware of their lack of commercial use - but I don’t sell photos ,it’s just a hobby for me

They are all hand-held, there’s really no chance getting these chaps when using a tripod, and exposures are f11, ISO400 and shutter between 1/125 and 1/500. Natural lighting, no flash.

Here's just one more ... incidental they're all varieties of hoverfly.

[Javelin]

I see them and they were called soldier bugs but I looked that up and found this name for them. "Pennsylvania Leather-Wings"

[Javelin]

Whenever theres a lack on interesting subjects around theres always macros and shots of different bugs. it's funny this year has been so wet here and still the only bugs that seem to be around are flies and mosquitoes

[Javelin]

Most of whatI can shoot here has been out of place or things like spiders that like the dark and I just can;t get enough light on them for the pictures to come out. There have been very few bees this year here as well. We have frogs galore now and a few snakes that are never there when I have a camera... maybe i'll take some frogs on the weekend. there are son tan ones I haven't seen before.

[David Kilpatrick]

The forum will now let people say 'balls' - the censored words are not supposed to also be ones you might need to use for a plain description. Amazed that you got away with 'buggers' as the singular results in a substitution.

David

[aachen96]

It seems to be one of the Longhorn Beetle family by the look of it!

[Greg Beetham]

I keep forgetting too check down this end of the forum, those insect shots are stunning Roger, crisp and clear...lovely.
Greg

[aster]

Hi,

These photos are very admirable rogprov! So are Sonolta's in their own right... Thanks for sharing.
Handheld and catching the opportunity of good composition is hard to come by but you have succeeded nicely.

I wonder though, do any of you own a Tamron 90mm, f/2.8 macro lens and were you able to shoot similar images with it, or does it have some issues with creatures like flying bees or maybe butterflies? I would of loved to give insect shooting a try were they in my garden, but due to strange things happening with the weather/climate there's a scarcity of nice flying creatures this year compared to our past summers/springs. I couldn't get any opportunity of shooting one with the Tamron and I am wondering...

Do any of you have good insect shots taken with Tamron 90mm that you could possibly share the experience with?

Thanks
Yildiz