Some more E-M1 macro - ID help needed in places

[ajohnw]

These were all shot with flash but no diffuser added yet. I've modified one of the clip on flashes that comes with the cameras but Olympus's early one as they are cheaper used than the later models. Still obtained 1/320 sec flash sync. I tried a few portraits this time

As usual quick pp crops from camera jpg's. Mostly sharpened in and out plus curves at times.

A


B There were some rounder bodied ones about often with one leg way longer than the others.


C This one did come out eventually but scoots around at speed.






D


E Red Admiral under wing


F Curious what would happen using flash on this. Also wonder what they are


G Hover fly? Well they hover and dart about. Failed to get one in the air


H Not enough mag to get the eye detail


I Took 2 shots and included the leaf in both.


J These seem to like visiting spider webs from time to time


K


L Cucumber spider under view. A bit bigger than the other one I posted..


And the usual way up with some web in the way. On both.


M


N


O ?? Damsel


I found flash only really helped to make up light levels and keep the shutter speed up but given the problems on flat wings etc square on to the camera I suspect it would be better to turn it off providing shutter speed is >= 1/200.

John
-

[ajohnw]

A few more

P Blue tailed damsel.


Q Must have moved?


Desperation sets in. One butterfly and several dragon flies wouldn't co operate so used 300mm on m 4/3.

R


S Not a good shot but curios about the common name for these. Black under wing and I couldn't get within 2m of one.


John
-

[Shadowman]

Nicely done, well isolated from the background and very sharp.

[ajohnw]

Thanks John.

Out of interest I took all of these with the 75-300mm zoom plus an achromatic close up lens. The flash would have been a bit close if I had used the Olympus 60mm macro lens. Only problem with the zoom is that at much above 200mm it gets a bit of a handful. 300mm looks to give more than 1:1 but hard to be sure. I may try that with a monopod and see if it helps next time. The working distance is pretty consistent through the range, A hindrance in some cases and a help in others.

John
-

[bnnrcn]

Hi John , so many nice images. May I ask what the red spider-like thing in the cucumber spider's back is ?

[DanK]

Some very nice images. I don't know the proper name, but B is what is called a "daddy long legs" or "harvestman" on this side of the pond. Both G & H look like hoverflies to me--check out the paddle-shaped antennae and the shape of the eyes, which are characteristics of flies. F is commonly called a green bottle fly here. They were used medicinally in the past, as their maggots will only eat dead flesh. They are a very precise and efficient way of cleaning out dead tissue from serious wounds.

[ajohnw]

Hi John , so many nice images. May I ask what the red spider-like thing in the cucumber spider's back is ?

These spiders seem to have a red tip and by the look of it a red dot underneath as well as mentioned here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Araniella_cucurbitina

John
-

[ajohnw]

Some very nice images. I don't know the proper name, but B is what is called a "daddy long legs" or "harvestman" on this side of the pond. Both G & H look like hoverflies to me--check out the paddle-shaped antennae and the shape of the eyes, which are characteristics of flies. F is commonly called a green bottle fly here. They were used medicinally in the past, as their maggots will only eat dead flesh. They are a very precise and efficient way of cleaning out dead tissue from serious wounds.

I've heard of green and blue bottle flies so assume these may be blue bottles trouble is the shape looks all wrong to me. I visualise them as common uk house flies with colour.

Round here we seem to call crane flies daddy long legs at least locally. Harvestman looks to be a candidate. Having seen some pictures of other variants i really should have looked for more.

John
-

[ajohnw]

I wonder what this type of damsel is called as well. I took the shot twice but on the 2nd a leaf part obscured the view and that wasn't terribly noticeable in the viewfinder - very much so in the actual image.



Noise? I have used largish rad (4 or 5px) sharpening on the full sized image as a quick contrast adjustment - it will bring out noise even when there isn't any. I used the same technique to varying degrees on all of them.

John
-

[Geoff F]

Quite a few to work through there, John.

A, Empis tessellata (although can't be certain about the tessellata bit from that angle). I would probably have cropped something like 4 x 5 ratio to lose a bit from the left. Whenever possible, shooting this fly a bit more to the side shows of its long mouthparts a bit better. But you have to take what you can get with real life insects.

B, Leiobunum harvestman. Only two species but tricky to separate unless you have exactly the right camera angle. That is a female, the smaller rounder more orange ones are males.

C, the spider looks like Agelena labyrinthica, sometimes wrongly called The English Funnel Web spider. They spend a lot of time lurking at the back of their untidy webs, usually covered in food debris and quickly dart back inside as soon as they see you move.

D, The Speckled Wood is always a good standby. One of the few butterflies that seem to like being close to people and posing for portraits.

E, I often find Red Admirals look better and are easier to photograph with wings closed. When open there is such a difference between colours that exposure is very tricky to get looking natural.

F, those Greenbottle flies, and many others are virtually impossible to photography well due to over exposure problems caused by the angle of light. Often, they actually come out better with flash. The only real alternative is very controlled lighting under studio conditions.

G, Eristalis, but not sure which. After deleting all those which it can't be, I'm wondering about E. horticola but need to see other angles. Looks like you had a bit of movement during shooting.

H, another Eristalis, but E. pertinax female this time. Works fine, don't worry about getting fine eye detail. You need exactly the right angle for that, which usually loses details elsewhere.

I, Which I think is a Dingy Footman moth. There are several similar Footmen. Moths never photograph well with flash due to their reflective wing scales. Bright sunshine can also cause problems. I shoot without flash but this means a long exposure on a tripod and/or higher Iso.

J, the female Scorpion Fly. You have managed both the tail and the distinctive mouth, which is good. They may well steal from spider webs, they certainly feed on other insects including caterpillars.

K, is this a Sawfly or one of the Ichneumon Wasps? I need a different angle. If it has a narrow wasp like waist, which does seem possible, it is an Ichneumon. With this photo, and some of the others, I would have selectively darkened the brighter background areas using an adjustment layer with an edited mask.

L, the Araniella spider, there are actually two virtually identical species. Usually impossible to get both body and abdomen in focus with just one shot. But don't worry about that as long as you have sufficient details visible.

M, a Gatekeeper which can be very similar to Meadow Brown except Gatekeepers have two small white dots in the black wing eye. Only one with Meadow Brown.

N, Ringlet. I tend to think they look better if you can get one sitting on a flower with wings closed. So far this year, I have failed.

O, female Common Blue Damselfly. Once again I would slightly tone down parts of the background. Looks as though it is eating something. I always likle to see them feeding which adds that little bit extra to a photo.

P, yes, a Blue-tailed male which has photographed well.

Q, another ringlet, see what I said about them looking good with wings closed. I try to avoid using flash on butterflies, particularly with wings open, as it can make them jump and give unwanted movement. Although in this case it could simply be the camera angle with insufficient focus depth. Often it is impossible to get absolutely square on to them when shooting amongst undergrowth. I failed with some Ringlets today because of that issue.

R, Common Darter female. I frequently struggle to get good shots of them. You need just the right angle and they can be a bit nervous when you try to move around.

S, a Peacock. I find them tricky to photograph. They settle just out of reach, looking seductive, but as soon as you move they are gone. Once again, better to shoot without flash.

[Geoff F]

ps. Your last damselfly is another Common Blue, a male.

[Brownbear]

Hi John,


Yes, indeed some very lovely images. Especially beautiful for me are A, 7,9,13 & 16. All sharp with beautiful detail, focus and lovely backgrounds - gorgeous!

Geoff... Your vast knowledge of insects is especially incredible!

[DanK]

Geoff,

It's great to have your expertise on this site. I'll be asking for IDs, I'm sure.

Re the bottle flies, you wrote:

F, those Greenbottle flies, and many others are virtually impossible to photography well due to over exposure problems caused by the angle of light. Often, they actually come out better with flash. The only real alternative is very controlled lighting under studio conditions.

Even with diffused flash, you can get reflections, but they can still be OK. This one was taken with a single Canon 430 EX II with a small diffuser held near the end of the lens. I was focusing by moving the camera, and the only one in focus had the bug poorly framed.

[ajohnw]

Thanks the info Geoff.

The Funnel spiders web was more like a mat. Fine enough to collect dew and rain drops. I took several other shots of it with better lighting but couldn't keep it in the frame. For some reason. maybe the fly top right it stayed still on this shot.

I don't think H is a hover fly either as the wings were more swept back. I didn't recognise it as a wasp either going on the ones we have in the midlands. These were taken in Pembrokeshire in a pretty wild garden. The hover flies were often hovering in range but raise the camera and they scooted off at a surprisingly high speed.

The Peacock was a real pain. It wouldn't even keep still in the shot I posted and just flew off every other time I tried to get near it.. Currently I can't easily remove the close up lens from the zoom as the flash is fixed to a lens hood with velcro. I suspect I could get close enough using straight 300mm but the detail wont match macro. I'm rather pleased with the achromatic close up lens - ex some Sigma macro zoom from the past.

I stuck to the method I used late in the other series - just enough magnification to see the detail clearly in the electronic viewfinder. No chance of seeing eye detail that way only in the actual shot. I'll probably try more mag at some point just to see if I can get eye detail reliably. Just enough magnification comes from microscope use where dof is often measured in um not mms. It makes sense to do the same thing with macro work to me but does result in cropping, I still need to get a better idea of how many pixels to have under the subject but that will come with time.

Yes PP could be better but in some ways I am showing what the gear can do. i may do a few of the shots I took properly. I only messed with high lights if I needed to use curves on the shot. I always do quickies before having a real go. The in sharpening seems to be a good idea to retain more detail when the shot is reduced but does often produce what looks like noise especially in out of focus areas.

I'm not sure how much light the flash will make up. Some shots were under exposed by say 1/2 EV which probably isn't a bad idea anyway when using Oly jpg's. Many exposures showed over -3 EV. Shooting distances were probably 200 to maybe 600mm. I have a feeling that I may buy one of their other small flash units and modify that to get a bit more power and still fix it to a lens hood.

John
-