Rhinoceros Beetle, sorry but it was dark & I needed the in camera flash

[JBW]

[Dave Humphries]

It is undoubtedly better than it would have been had you not used flash, but I know, having seen the other thread, this has 'got you thinking' about how better lighting could be brought to bear on your (usually close up or macro) subjects.

There are devices available to funnel the light from an on-camera flash to the subject better, although these may be unwieldy in use. Also, there are home-build possibilities, if you have an aptitude for it.

[JBW]

It is undoubtedly better than it would have been had you not used flash, but I know, having seen the other thread, this has 'got you thinking' about how better lighting could be brought to bear on your (usually close up or macro) subjects.

There are devices available to funnel the light from an on-camera flash to the subject better, although these may be unwieldy in use. Also, there are home-build possibilities, if you have an aptitude for it.

I'm thinking of trying white cotton baby booties, seriously .

[James G]

Brian, it is very much a 'low tech' solution, and does have significant limitations, but a good lightweight LED torch,strapped to a side bar attached to the camera can be quite effective at introducing extra light.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Neewer-Flash...Camera+bracket

I'm thinking of trying white cotton baby booties, seriously .

or, try trimming a plastic water cup to size, and pop it over the flash...

[JBW]

Brian, it is very much a 'low tech' solution, and does have significant limitations, but a good lightweight LED torch,strapped to a side bar attached to the camera can be quite effective at introducing extra light.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Neewer-Flash...Camera+bracket



or, try trimming a plastic water cup to size, and pop it over the flash...

low tech is my tech.

[Dave Humphries]

I'm thinking of trying white cotton baby booties, seriously .

I'd try one over the end of a cardboard loo roll centre piece, lined with aluminium foil - the aim being to extend the point of origin closer to the subject and past most of the length of the lens barrel.

On the LED torch idea, I have tried one of those 64 LED panels, I found it disturbed the subject when shooting a moth - however, that is 64 times more light than James was suggesting

[Bobobird]

Low tech is good tech!

The problem I find is that by introducing light one is also introducing blown highlights on the shiny parts of the bugs. Then comes the problem of finding a suitable diffusion material and from there something else happens and so on and so on.

I spent so much time from using coke cans to more elaborate solutions. At the end of the day, carrying all that stuff around and spending (wasting) time to set it up made me decide to drop the whole adding light thing altogether. Just not worth it. Heck, my interest was in getting a shot, not in monkeying around with this or that.

Many of the more "well known" macro shooters tend to use controlled environments like indoor soft boxes and refrigerated (not dead) bugs. Light variations outdoors are just too variable to handle so why not bring the bug to the light.

IMHO, the absolute best macro photographer I know is Brian Valentine. He uses just a coke can diffuser and everything is done outdoors.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv

He has a good selection of tips and tricks here
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=807056

He just posted his latest here (flowers) a couple of hours ago.
http://photocamel.com/forum/macro-cl...bell-bits.html

[JBW]

Low tech is good tech!

The problem I find is that by introducing light one is also introducing blown highlights on the shiny parts of the bugs. Then comes the problem of finding a suitable diffusion material and from there something else happens and so on and so on.

I spent so much time from using coke cans to more elaborate solutions. At the end of the day, carrying all that stuff around and spending (wasting) time to set it up made me decide to drop the whole adding light thing altogether. Just not worth it. Heck, my interest was in getting a shot, not in monkeying around with this or that.

Many of the more "well known" macro shooters tend to use controlled environments like indoor soft boxes and refrigerated (not dead) bugs. Light variations outdoors are just too variable to handle so why not bring the bug to the light.

IMHO, the absolute best macro photographer I know is Brian Valentine. He uses just a coke can diffuser and everything is done outdoors.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv

He has a good selection of tips and tricks here
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=807056

He just posted his latest here (flowers) a couple of hours ago.
http://photocamel.com/forum/macro-cl...bell-bits.html

apologies for not being more clear. It was night time. Don't know if he is the best but he certainly is one of the best.

[Bobobird]

My assessment of Brian Valentine is based on the fact that I know for certain that he will never manipulate reality. That he gets his quality of shots in the wild is simply amazing.

For example we often see mantis on a curly piece of vegetation. One even as if it was riding a bike. Those were not chanced upon shots. The thing was chilled, placed on the plants and photographed while it was warming up in the sun. I could never respect someone who did that sort of mischief both to the animal and the viewer.

2 places stand out in that almost 100% of shots are being manufactured - Thailand and Indonesia. Except landscapes anything with a living thing in the shot is there by design. Even boys playing in a stream are there because they have been paid to be in there.

So...

Story - one time very early in my photography I took the flash along to do some butterflies. He was backlit so thought that was cool and could use the flash for fill. Fired off one shot and I think it twitched. Huh! Just to make sure I was not seeing thing, fired off another. It twitched again. From that day on I have never fired a flash directly onto any insect. Indirect bounce off something or other yes but never direct.

But that is a moot point now as I hardly shoot bugs anymore (really nasty incident with a Japanese hornet).

[James G]

I think it twitched. Huh! Just to make sure I was not seeing thing, fired off another. It twitched again. From that day on I have never fired a flash directly onto any insect. Indirect bounce off something or other yes but never direct.

Not sure if it is quite the same thing, but on occasion I find that certain insects, react to the flash, getting away before it fires.
I think it t could be down to pre-flash alerting them to hazard, resetting flash to manual can work, but will startle them, ...but often there is no immediate second chance

There also seem to be insects that react to the auto focus. i.e. the flash is not in use, but they react as I focus, maybe picking up on the USM? Again, when there is a second chance, I have switched to manual focus and tried again.

[Manfred M]

Brian - (and Dave, James and Bobo) Thank you for reminding me why I don't want to get into macro work. It seems like such a bother...

All joking aside, Brian - you can see the issue that flash can introduce into this type of a shot. The beetle's exoskeleton is nicely reflective and you get those hot spots that really don't do much for the image. Secondly, even with flash, exposure is still and issue and over exposure and under exposure (as seems to be the case with this image) are still things you need to worry about when taking the shot.

[Dave Humphries]

There also seem to be insects that react to the auto focus. i.e. the flash is not in use, but they react as I focus, maybe picking up on the USM? Again, when there is a second chance, I have switched to manual focus and tried again.

Now there's a concept I hadn't considered, but sounds plausible (if you excuse the unintentional pun)

[Geoff F]

As Manfred said, some insects are just plain difficult to photograph well and adding flash can cause as many problems as it solves.

I suspect you can do a bit more with this image in the way of normal editing to slightly bring up the darker areas without causing over exposure of the highlights.

Sometimes I find it is tricky to decide on what exposure settings to use when shooting this sort of subject; so whenever possible I like to do a bit of exposure bracketing. Usually not bothering with the auto camera option; but just taking three or four shots with a little variation in the exposure compensation between shots. Then decide which one works best when viewed on the computer.

[Saorsa]

Try a white card as a reflector. It won't do much for the popup flash but can work very well with a bright LED flashlight.

This one is a Cree 3000 lumen and you can get it for under $10.