Hoverfly

[lesno1]

[Shadowman]

Nice series.

[DanK]

Good captures. However, what are you using for lighting? The lighting seems very harsh--hard shadows, specular highlights, reflections on the eyes, etc. Some amount of this is often hard to avoid, particularly with shiny bugs, but this seems like a lot to me. Are you using any diffusion?

[Wavelength]

Excellent images...can we minimise such reflections by using UV polarization filters?

[DanK]

Excellent images...can we minimise such reflections by using UV polarization filters?

A UV filter would have no effect on this. A polarizer might help, but I have never used one with bugs because it reduces light by one or two stops. I do use one sometimes with studio macro, where a longer exposure isn't usually a problem.

In my experience, the best approach is a heavily diffused flash held very close to the front end of the lens (to make the light source larger relative to the bug). Several years ago, I built a better, larger diffuser, and it made a substantial difference. Here's the original diffuser, which I built by wrapping aluminum foil around the sides and paper towel around the front of a StoFen diffuser:



I replaced it with this one, which is made out of a soda can, following the directions of a couple of superb bug macro photographers:



I've tried a bunch of different diffusing materials, but on this one, I currently have two sheets of baking parchment paper. I also put on the flash's integral wide-angle filter.

In some cases, this is enough to avoid harsh shadows and reflections altogether, but in other cases--particularly with very shiny insects like bottle flies--I still get reflections. Here's a fairly large fly for which it worked well:



Here is a tiny fly for which it didn't work all that well. Note the specular highlights on the wing and body. You will also see the irregular reflection on the eye that you can also see in the OP. Still, the lighting is much less harsh than in those.



The main drawback of this rig, other than its awkwardness, is that the contraption is usually held onto the flash with gaffer's tape. (The masking tape in the photo was an initial attempt.) it's not terribly secure, and while gaffer's tape is much better than duct tape in this regard, it leaves a sticky residue on the flash that is hard to remove.

A bit off topic: in both photos, I have a 36mm extension tube behind a 100mm macro lens. This gives roughly 1.5:1 magnification (the effective focal length is shorter than the nominal length at minimum working distance), which is the highest I have been able to manage with live bugs.

[Geoff F]

That is Volucella inanis. An uncommon and localised hoverfly but it is increasing and spreading in range.

Very shiny difficult subject to photograph in sunlight and shade can produce other issues with shutter speed etc. Polarisers won't help with the bright over exposed areas and will reduce the available light. Flash will help with reducing harsh shadows without increasing any hot spot problems. Carefully controlled flash is my default position, although some subjects/conditions require other options. Flash diffusers can be helpful when working really close by widening the flash area, but I have found no difference beyond about two feet distance. If the flash is overly bright, use some adjustment to the flash output compensation settings.

But, with this sort of photography, some time will be required for very careful image editing if you want perfect results. Shooting Raw with give better results with any later editing work.

[lesno1]

That is Volucella inanis. An uncommon and localised hoverfly but it is increasing and spreading in range.

Very shiny difficult subject to photograph in sunlight and shade can produce other issues with shutter speed etc. Polarisers won't help with the bright over exposed areas and will reduce the available light. Flash will help with reducing harsh shadows without increasing any hot spot problems. Carefully controlled flash is my default position, although some subjects/conditions require other options. Flash diffusers can be helpful when working really close by widening the flash area, but I have found no difference beyond about two feet distance. If the flash is overly bright, use some adjustment to the flash output compensation settings.

But, with this sort of photography, some time will be required for very careful image editing if you want perfect results. Shooting Raw with give better results with any later editing work.

I use a twin head flash with diffusion but this was in bright sunlight not easy to get just right and i always shoot in raw thanks for the interest

[DanK]

Les,

Bright sunlight can be difficult, but sufficiently powerful and sufficiently diffused flash can usually deal with it. I may be remembering wrong, but I think this one was shot in open sunlight:



Assuming you are shooting in TTL (automatic flash) mode, which I always use, one key to this is to use a low ISO and a reasonably fast shutter speed. That means that the camera won't record much ambient light and will mostly record the flash. The shot above was taken at 1/125, ISO 200. I'm not sure why I used 200 rather than 100; it might have been to keep the petals in the background bright enough. But even with that, enough diffusion is essential.

Dan

[lesno1]

Les,

Bright sunlight can be difficult, but sufficiently powerful and sufficiently diffused flash can usually deal with it. I may be remembering wrong, but I think this one was shot in open sunlight:



Assuming you are shooting in TTL (automatic flash) mode, which I always use, one key to this is to use a low ISO and a reasonably fast shutter speed. That means that the camera won't record much ambient light and will mostly record the flash. The shot above was taken at 1/125, ISO 200. I'm not sure why I used 200 rather than 100; it might have been to keep the petals in the background bright enough. But even with that, enough diffusion is essential.

Dan

Thanks Dan i never thought of that