Insects...

[Wildieswife]

Gorgeous macro photos!

Pat, what your husband does with insects in the field of Hyper-Macros is quite extraordinary. l was wondering how he prepared the specimens to photograph them so nicely from all angles; are they alive or made to appear so?

Thanks for sharing,

Yildiz

Thanks Yildiz. The insects are collected responsibly and with permission if it's a reserve. This is acceptable amongst entomologists. Then, part of the art is to set them realistically, after death and before he photographs them.

Pat

[MickH]

I'm probably going to be the lone voice in this thread.

First allow me to make it clear that I have no problem at all with the principal of modifying images with photo shop provided that it's done openly .

I have no issue with Pat's second and third images - they are obviously 'fakes' and there's no question of them being used for other than their intended purpose. I have a very slight niggle with the first because it's done so well (to my eye at least) it might well be passed off as real. Even that wouldn't matter in general photography but my opinion isn't driven by generalists it's driven by the world of Natural History.

Read the following:

FIAP Definition of Natural History Photographs
Nature photography depicts living, untamed animals and uncultivated plants in a natural
habitat, geology and the wide diversity of natural phenomena, from insects to icebergs.
Photographs of animals, which are domesticated, caged or under any form of restraint,
as well as photographs of cultivated plants, are ineligible.
Minimal evidence of humans is acceptable for nature subjects, such as barn owls or storks
adapting to an environment modified by humans, or natural forces, like hurricanes or
tidal waves, reclaiming it.
Any manipulation or modification to an original PDI must be limited to minor retouching
of blemishes and must not alter the content of the original scene.
After satisfying the above requirements, every effort should be made to use the highest level
of artistic skill in all nature photographs.

That pretty well describes 'my world' and drives what I do and how I do it. There are excellent reasons for the rule (by the way there was a similar rule in darkroom days but as P'Shop has made faking so much easier the rules have had to be tightened) but I would be typing all night if I went through them.

Examples:

1. A photo of a dragonfly taken in an area of the country where that species is supposed to be absent.
2. A picture of a damselfly that has been 'extinct' in the UK for the last 50 years.

Both were accepted as valid records and proof because I subscribe to the rigid rules that bind we NH photographers. Any suspicion of trickery on my part and nothing I ever produced would be accepted at face value again.

Finally I'd like to end by repeating that I have no problem in principal with using PShop to its fullest extent - but not in NH photography. I wish that I could use the program as well as Pat obviously does.

MickH

[Wildieswife]

I'm probably going to be the lone voice in this thread.

First allow me to make it clear that I have no problem at all with the principal of modifying images with photo shop provided that it's done openly .

I have no issue with Pat's second and third images - they are obviously 'fakes' and there's no question of them being used for other than their intended purpose. I have a very slight niggle with the first because it's done so well (to my eye at least) it might well be passed off as real. Even that wouldn't matter in general photography but my opinion isn't driven by generalists it's driven by the world of Natural History.

Read the following:

FIAP Definition of Natural History Photographs
Nature photography depicts living, untamed animals and uncultivated plants in a natural
habitat, geology and the wide diversity of natural phenomena, from insects to icebergs.
Photographs of animals, which are domesticated, caged or under any form of restraint,
as well as photographs of cultivated plants, are ineligible.
Minimal evidence of humans is acceptable for nature subjects, such as barn owls or storks
adapting to an environment modified by humans, or natural forces, like hurricanes or
tidal waves, reclaiming it.
Any manipulation or modification to an original PDI must be limited to minor retouching
of blemishes and must not alter the content of the original scene.
After satisfying the above requirements, every effort should be made to use the highest level
of artistic skill in all nature photographs.

That pretty well describes 'my world' and drives what I do and how I do it. There are excellent reasons for the rule (by the way there was a similar rule in darkroom days but as P'Shop has made faking so much easier the rules have had to be tightened) but I would be typing all night if I went through them.

Examples:

1. A photo of a dragonfly taken in an area of the country where that species is supposed to be absent.
2. A picture of a damselfly that has been 'extinct' in the UK for the last 50 years.

Both were accepted as valid records and proof because I subscribe to the rigid rules that bind we NH photographers. Any suspicion of trickery on my part and nothing I ever produced would be accepted at face value again.

Finally I'd like to end by repeating that I have no problem in principal with using PShop to its fullest extent - but not in NH photography. I wish that I could use the program as well as Pat obviously does.

MickH

I don't understand. None of my insect images are 'fakes'. I have only used the minimum of post processing on any of them. On the thread I posted called 'Image Manipulation' I have openly stated that the images have been 'faked'. All of my insect shots are as they were and I most certainly wouldn't like anyone to think that my wildlife images are manipulated. I'd say if they were.

I wouldn't consider entering any wildlife competition with a 'fake' image as you are always obliged to show the RAW or original and I wouldn't consider breaking rules. I think it's important I make this quite clear.

However, I do think it is rather naive to think that everyone follows the laid down rules as far as wildlife photography/film making is concerned - especially the part of 'in a natural environment'.....
Like exactly how natural? No cameras on birds? No shots from a hand glider? No baiting? No remote cameras? No staking out of a live goat to get the footage of the Snow Leopard that made TV history? Believe you me this all goes on. Do you really think that when you watch a programme on TV that it is the same little lion cub that has lost his Mum or is it perhaps a cobble together of different footage to make a storyline that grips the audience? It is the latter.

On my OH's Wildlife Photography BA , photoshop techniques played a very big part. It helps to know how to make the best of an image - especially if you sell. There were lectures by the pros who gave tips on the art of 'how to'. Tricks are used and provided there is minimal disruption to the subject it is probably a good thing. The images and footage will raise awareness for causes and teach people to love our natural world. You'd be surprised how things are done. Remember the 'expose' of how the polar bear cubs in the den were filmed in a zoo? We laughed our heads off that people actually believed a cameraman had dug a hole in the side of a bear den and laid in the freezing Arctic snow for days on end!!! At no point did Attenborough claim this was the case so what was the problem?? It made good viewing and fitted in well with the other sections.

I'd still like to reassure anyone who has any doubts that I don't 'cheat' without owning up !
Most of all I'd like to state that I thoroughly enjoy photography and think it should always be fun. Discussions like this aren't always fun. I think it's probably been done to death now.
Post processing is as much a part of photography as it always was. Even Fox-Talbot and Man Ray 'cheated'


Pat

[MickH]

I don't understand. None of my insect images are 'fakes'. I have only used the minimum of post processing on any of them. On the thread I posted called 'Image Manipulation' I have openly stated that the images have been 'faked'. All of my insect shots are as they were and I most certainly wouldn't like anyone to think that my wildlife images are manipulated. I'd say if they were.

I'm not surprised that you don't understand. Somehow I posted in the wrong thread. My post was supposed to be in the 'manipulation thread' where you did indeed point out that your images were 'fakes'. The numbers that I used were supposed to relate to your three images in that thread. Very sorry for the confusion.

I wouldn't consider entering any wildlife competition with a 'fake' image as you are always obliged to show the RAW or original and I wouldn't consider breaking rules. I think it's important I make this quite clear.

I'm sure that you wouldn't and neither would I - that's the point that I was making.

However, I do think it is rather naive to think that everyone follows the laid down rules as far as wildlife photography/film making is concerned - especially the part of 'in a natural environment'.....
Like exactly how natural? No cameras on birds? No shots from a hand glider? No baiting? No remote cameras? No staking out of a live goat to get the footage of the Snow Leopard that made TV history? Believe you me this all goes on. Do you really think that when you watch a programme on TV that it is the same little lion cub that has lost his Mum or is it perhaps a cobble together of different footage to make a storyline that grips the audience? It is the latter.

Fair point but as I've said before I don't operate in the professional environment and because I don't I tend to concentrate on amateur issues and,as you obviously know, the rule I quoted applies to pretty well any photo competition/exhibition even the BBC one that's open to pros. Remember last year (or maybe the year before) when the 'winner' (a pictures of a wolf jumping a gate) was disqualified because the wolf was found to be tame. I understand that suspicions were aroused because wild wolves don't go jumping gates unless in 'hot pursuit'.

Having said that the RPS (Royal Photographic Society) does have some weasel words that allow NH photos to be taken in controlled conditions under some circumstances.

On my OH's Wildlife Photography BA , photoshop techniques played a very big part. It helps to know how to make the best of an image - especially if you sell. There were lectures by the pros who gave tips on the art of 'how to'. Tricks are used and provided there is minimal disruption to the subject it is probably a good thing. The images and footage will raise awareness for causes and teach people to love our natural world. You'd be surprised how things are done. Remember the 'expose' of how the polar bear cubs in the den were filmed in a zoo? We laughed our heads off that people actually believed a cameraman had dug a hole in the side of a bear den and laid in the freezing Arctic snow for days on end!!! At no point did Attenborough claim this was the case so what was the problem?? It made good viewing and fitted in well with the other sections.

I worry sometimes that it's a small step from something that's helpful to something that's scientifically misleading. I have no problem with the techniques described above in their proper place if we can be sure that we are still seeing natural behavior.

I'd still like to reassure anyone who has any doubts that I don't 'cheat' without owning up !
Most of all I'd like to state that I thoroughly enjoy photography and think it should always be fun. Discussions like this aren't always fun. I think it's probably been done to death now.
Post processing is as much a part of photography as it always was. Even Fox-Talbot and Man Ray 'cheated'

Once again let me repeat that I was in the wrong thread and had no intention of even the slightest suggestion that you were doing anything wrong. Once again sorry for the confusion.

Now let me disagree for the last time. I think that discussions like this are interesting and valuable. Fun? Maybe not but necessary - absolutely. If we lose track of what's 100% real and what's 'faked' then IMHO we are in very big trouble.

Anyway if you want to leave it there that's fine.

MickH

[Wildieswife]

I'm not surprised that you don't understand. Somehow I posted in the wrong thread. My post was supposed to be in the 'manipulation thread' where you did indeed point out that your images were 'fakes'. The numbers that I used were supposed to relate to your three images in that thread. Very sorry for the confusion.

Aahhhh! Now I understand. Apology accepted - a mere misunderstanding.

Fair point but as I've said before I don't operate in the professional environment and because I don't I tend to concentrate on amateur issues and,as you obviously know, the rule I quoted applies to pretty well any photo competition/exhibition even the BBC one that's open to pros. Remember last year (or maybe the year before) when the 'winner' (a pictures of a wolf jumping a gate) was disqualified because the wolf was found to be tame. I understand that suspicions were aroused because wild wolves don't go jumping gates unless in 'hot pursuit'.

Having said that the RPS (Royal Photographic Society) does have some weasel words that allow NH photos to be taken in controlled conditions under some circumstances.

I think your viewpoint is probably dictated by your operating environment (ie Photo Clubs with purist attitudes) just as ours our dictated by ours. Horses for courses and understandable.

I worry sometimes that it's a small step from something that's helpful to something that's scientifically misleading. I have no problem with the techniques described above in their proper place if we can be sure that we are still seeing natural behavior.

Don't worry too much! There are many things out of our control and there's often not much we can do about any of 'em

Now let me disagree for the last time. I think that discussions like this are interesting and valuable. Fun? Maybe not but necessary - absolutely. If we lose track of what's 100% real and what's 'faked' then IMHO we are in very big trouble.

Anyway if you want to leave it there that's fine.

We'll agree to disagree and be mutually respectful! Sometimes I get too busy to carry on long discussions and there's often a point where all has been said and you know you're not going to change a viewpoint - and why should you think you have to anyway? As long as it doesn't get personal I don't mind at all if someone disagrees. As Voltaire said - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Pat

[Birma]

After a mere 7 months I thought it was time we resurrected this thread


Monkwood 2013 - Common Darter f2f by Birm, on Flickr

A Dragon Fly, a Common Darter. Tilly and I went for a walk in the woods and I was hoping we'd get to see some Dragonflies at some small ponds in the woods. There were plenty of these Common Darters, some Southern Hawkers (which are huge!) and some tiny Emerald Damselflies. We had some great fun spotting them and watching them buzz over our heads. The Common Darters were good enough to stop and take a breather occasionally for the benefit of the photographer.

Nex 6 with SEL 55-210.

[aster]

Very nice, Birma.

Lucky you and Tilly for finding so many of them...

Yildiz

[mvanrheenen]

Went for a walk today and found this little chap on a bridge.


Bloedrode heidelibel/Ruddy Darter (Sympetrum sanguineum) by markvanrheenen, on Flickr


Ready for take-off! by markvanrheenen, on Flickr

Shot with the RX100.

Mark

[Birma]

Thanks Yildiz (sorry for my tardy response!)

Nice find Mark. I like the first pic especially with the river or canal in the background.

[mvanrheenen]

Thanks Andy.

[Greg Beetham]

I missed that one Birma, I don’t know how, but it’s a good one with 35 degrees of flap and landing gear extended, (you have warned Tilly about the odd heffalump in the hundred acre woods?)
While Marks one looks like it had suffered a hard landing in the immediate past, interesting runway, but what is it? A rail on a walkway perhaps? Nicely contrived.
Greg

[Birma]

Thanks Greg While Tilly is aware of the bear called Pooh, and Heffalumps, here favourite beast to stalk in the woods is the Gruffalo! (A more recent addition to the pantheon of children's books.) When I say we are going to look for dragons in the woods she likes that as well .

[aster]

Lovely find, Mark.

The first is great but I also liked the second for showing the nice reddish colour of the long body/tail.


Thanks for sharing,

Yildiz

[mvanrheenen]

Thank you Yildiz and Greg. The runway is actually a small bridge which I have to cross to get into the woods.

Mark

[Birma]

Time to bump the Insect thread

There was one very slow butterfly in the meadow at the weekend that happened to flap past when I had the right lens on the camera. (How often does that not happen!?) This is almost a 100% crop to fill up the frame.

I think it is a male Common Blue butterfly, and it is on a buttercup.


2014 Eades - Common Blue by Birm, on Flickr

A99 and 70-400 G mk I