Post your insects

[Geoff F]

I haven't seen many shieldbugs this year so I didn't expect this Bronze Bug (Troilus luridus).



Previously, I have mentioned that finding one uncommon insect can make a whole week seem worthwhile. Well here is another of those successes.



Rhingia rostrata female. I have found one or two a year at one small wood so thought that they must be elsewhere in the area. This one was from another small wood beside an estuary.

It was originally feeding on a flower but I accidentally disturbed it before realising it's identity. When it settled on a barbed wire fence, and posed so well, I though this will make something really different.

[ajohnw]

Out of interest really. All taken hand held with a manual 100mm Pentax Macro lens at 2:1 on an Olympus Pen and cropped. I need to carry some depth of field tables in my head. To focus this well on a Pen the magnified view has to be used - 7x so it's like using a 700mm telephoto or 1400mm in 35mm terms hand held at close distance. Worse still only a small proportion of the subject can be seen so I even had to hope they remain in the view as I move backward and forwards to focus. The Pen's don't have image stability for focusing. Only when the shot is taken.



I rather like the next one



And a butterfly, easier but not thrilled with the way it turned out so haven't correct the colouring. The spiders didn't need that. Also focused a little too deep.



There is an interesting one here that I haven't reduced. Much of the detail would be lost.

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...82543/original

This is a full resolution shot of the 1st spider

http://www.23hq.com/ajohnw/photo/8163926/original


John

[Geoff F]

John, if you aren't already aware of it; your spiders are called Araneus diadematus (Garden Spider) and the butterfly is a Speckled Wood. They are one of the most friendly butterflies and seem to enjoy being around people. Unlike many others, they appear to deliberately pose for photos.

Here is an odd looking weevil - most weevils look a bit strange though.

Upload problems. Will try again later.

[Geoff F]

OK then, let's try again after a bit more time . . .



No easy name, Apoderus coryli.

And something else unpronounceable, one of the Plume Moths



Probably Amblyptilia punctidactyla

[ajohnw]

I'm not really into insect names so had no idea Geoff. Thanks. There were several of the butterflies flying about dive bombing each other so I suspect they were breeding. One I shot took off mid shot so all I obtained was wing blur. The one posted had gone by the time I had removed the camera from my eye. Very little about just these and the spiders. The spider shot I like was moving - 1/2 out of frame the 1st time. No where near as fast as they can move though otherwise I wouldn't have had any chance of shooting it. Our dog spoiled the shot I haven't reduced. It was busily wrapping the insect. Dog wondered what I was looking at and stuck her head in the web - spider disappeared rapidly. I came back 10 mins later less dog and took the shot. :-) I may frame and print it but my wife would probably insist it was hidden away.

Your shots make me wonder what gear you are using? My next attempts will probably be with a telephoto zoom plus close up lens but I expect the af to be useless unless the insect is on something the camera can focus on. I've already found that af just goes straight through webs and focuses on the background.

John

[Geoff F]

It is possible to use autofocus on insects, John, but I get much better results with manual focus because I can focus on exactly which part of an insect I need to be sharpest.

I started getting serious about macro photography with the Canon 70-300 lens plus a 25 mm extension tube on a 40D. And quickly discovered that using flash is essential, at least most of the time. This enables a narrow aperture like F14 and a shutter speed around 1/200 plus a fairly low Iso.

Now I have moved up to a 7D with Sigma 180 macro lens often with a 1.4x lens converter attached. But converters aren't really suitable for the 'cheaper' zooms. Extension tubes are usually a better option.

A good tripod is also best for consistent quality.

You are already getting fairly good quality so you will find serious macro work interesting. But it can soon get expensive. Besides the camera equipment there is the identification books which are often well over £20 each!

[ajohnw]

I could use my Canon gear but at the moment am determined to put together a compact light weight do all most anything kit based round an Olympus Pen. I used the inbuilt flash on all of the shots. Even that proved to be a problem. Pop up the flash and iso dropped to 200 even in manual iso. Often resulting in a lower shutter speed. I then found that if I selected an iso in manual mode and then switched to any of the others it stayed set when the flash was popped up and it even controlled the flash-most of the time.. Last night I played with a close up lens on the Pen 45-150mm zoom. Looks like I can get 3:1 with that but had to use full manual mode to set aperture and speed and lo now the flash will only work on full or fractional powers. So much for AF lenses and so it goes on largely down to stupidity on Olympus's part. On the other hand they have an excellent jpg engine for high iso work. The camera control is quirky. I've order a step down ring so that I can use the close up lenses on a Panasonic telephoto - that way I get image stability while focusing - Crazy company fancy selling a camera that encourages people to buy the competitions lenses. It's a must even for normal telephoto work.

Biggest problems really relate to the sensor and the need for magnified view for critical focusing. I would have thought that Panasonic would have come up with a decent sensor by now. It so so really even on the new OM. The only question really is if Panasonic's magnified view within the entire view is a better option. I used a manual focus compact years ago that did that and the idea works well. Only problem is 4.7x were as it really needs to be 7x for 12mp sensor. Even more if people use the rear screen rather than the clip on electronic 1.4mp view finder.

:-) Thought I should mention the problems in case some one thinks compact light weight kit what a great idea. It is BUT.

John

[Letrow]

I haven't seen many shieldbugs this year so I didn't expect this Bronze Bug (Troilus luridus).



Previously, I have mentioned that finding one uncommon insect can make a whole week seem worthwhile. Well here is another of those successes.



Rhingia rostrata female. I have found one or two a year at one small wood so thought that they must be elsewhere in the area. This one was from another small wood beside an estuary.

It was originally feeding on a flower but I accidentally disturbed it before realising it's identity. When it settled on a barbed wire fence, and posed so well, I though this will make something really different.

I have to say the barbed wire looks gorgeous Geoff. I wondered what kind of plant it was untill I read your text. It proofs to me that macro is beautiful in lots of cases.

[Geoff F]

I recently showed a photo of a Bronze Bug, well here is a juvenile from a different location.



Not sure what it is eating but they do prey on other insects.

These are so difficult to photograph because they glisten in any light. Using flash etc is impossible. This was a slightly overcast day so I bumped up the Iso and shot with a lot of negative exposure compensation to expose for the brightest area.

Then created two Raw conversions with different exposures and combined them.

[Geoff F]

Always keep your antennae clean.



Close up of a Lacewing.

[Letrow]

One recent and two older photos of the rhagonycha fulva

[Geoff F]

I haven't seen a lot of those beetles this year, Peter, normally they are everywhere.

A few shots of different hoverflies visiting the same popular flower within a few minutes of each other:-

Eristalis arbustorum male



Platycheirus albimanus female



Syrphus vitripennis female

[Plumcrak]

I am not sure what these are but since it was 45 degrees this morning they were all bunched up waiting for the sun I guess. A couple were moving about away from the cluster but they were still very slow (which made it very easy to capture for somebody as slow as me)

[Letrow]

One of the flies in my garden

[wlou]

Hello Geoff, I love the sharpness in these images, the DOF is perfect. I am using a Mac book pro and not able to read Data, could you be kind enough to share them with me? Great pics!

[Geoff F]

Nothing fancy, Louise. As far as possible, 1/200, F14, Iso 200. All set manually to suit the average scene. Then flash (Speedlite 580) with a little flash output compensation; usually around -2.

7D with Sigma 180 mm macro lens, often with a 1.4x converter added. On a tripod. At one time I did try using cable release but found that I was missing too many quick shots while fumbling for the switch. And a bit of experimentation suggested that there was very little lost in camera shake if the shutter speed was around 1/200, which is usually necessary to allow for subject movement/wind rock.

Sometimes, just for a change or when I get a problem with extra shiny 'models' in bright light, I will turn the flash off and shoot in Av between F11 and F14. But this usually means an Iso of 800, and a careful watch on the shutter speed. Shooting Raw also helps to correct white balance problems which often occur with this method.

[wlou]

Nothing fancy, Louise. As far as possible, 1/200, F14, Iso 200. All set manually to suit the average scene. Then flash (Speedlite 580) with a little flash output compensation; usually around -2.

7D with Sigma 180 mm macro lens, often with a 1.4x converter added. On a tripod. At one time I did try using cable release but found that I was missing too many quick shots while fumbling for the switch. And a bit of experimentation suggested that there was very little lost in camera shake if the shutter speed was around 1/200, which is usually necessary to allow for subject movement/wind rock.

Sometimes, just for a change or when I get a problem with extra shiny 'models' in bright light, I will turn the flash off and shoot in Av between F11 and F14. But this usually means an Iso of 800, and a careful watch on the shutter speed. Shooting Raw also helps to correct white balance problems which often occur with this method.

Geoff, so you do use a converter, I was wandering about that. I do have a good tripod, and I shoot RAW all the time now. I have a remote that cost me next to nothing, wireless, I use it haft the time in combination with 2 sec. delay. I tend to shoot more from f2.8 on. I am not sure I would get good Bokeh like you did at f14. It is all in the learning curve I hope.. Thanks for the info.

[Geoff F]

A 1.4x converter usually works well with a good quality prime lens, but can be risky with cheaper zooms. In which case, extension tubes are a better bet.

For me, the critical element in how close you can get is the 'fly away distance' which is often 2 ft or more. In fact I reckon I have done very well if I can get withing 1 ft of most subjects.

A couple of examples. I needed exact angles, for identification purposes, on these shiny nervous flies. So I knew I wouldn't be getting any prizewinning photos. But both species were new to me, so that would be a real bonus.



One of the Soldier Flies - Sargus bipunctatus male.

And a very close relative - Sargus flavipes female.



For identification, I needed to see: The extent of fringing behind the eyes; the colour and length of thoracic hair; the exact colouration of all legs; any spines on the rear of the thorax; and an indication of abdomen colour.

[Letrow]

Geoff, I am amazed you can identify most of them. Ok, I only use the internet, but I know how difficult it is to find the less known ones.
Do you use certain books for this mostly or can you do part of the identification online?

Below one of my nice looking flies



I liked the eye colour against the white of the flowers

[stevewe88]

I found this fella in the garden this evening.