Oppose If we are really going to "Raise the bar" on insect photos, then it has to have absolute technically perfection in addition to a wow factor. An out-of-focus wing is not technical perfection. -- Ram-Man22:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is right? The right wing is out of focus? Or maybe the left wing is out of focus?Then I guess you should have said:"Thats left",or maybe both wings are out of focus? Then should not you have said "Thats both"?--09:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
Sorry for my bad english, i meant that i agree with Ram-Man about the perfection for FP Makro Freak 1007, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
What's a pitty. I really wanted to learn what wing is out of focus(and to learn it from such insects autority as you are), not to repeat the same mistake the next time.--Mbz113:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Sorry, my foul mouth forgets sometimes :). The wings are ok, but the head is really out of focus which is not nice for a top shot, plus the flower is overexposed. I think its nearly impossible to make a really good insect picture without a tripod. --Makro Freaktalk15:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that. For insects with large wings it's essential to be parallel to the wings. If your subject isn't holding perfectly still you are far less flexible with a tripod. In this special case the fault was to chose an aperture of f/5.6 at 1/1000s as the wings are not fully expanded (e.g. on a flat plane with the thorax). This could have easily been shot 3 stops down at f/11 and 1/125s which probably would have placed the complete butterfly inside the DOF. The background wouldn't have gotten prettier though --MichaD | Michael Apel16:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for advices, everybody. I'm afraid it will not help me the next time, because while I would be changing my camera settings fast flying, wild insect would fly away.~~----Mbz1
I'm not saying you can't get good macro shots with a tripod but rather it isn't always a necessity for getting them. In my opinion macro photography is a constant struggle between getting enough DOF, light and shutter speed. If your subject isn't moving you can use a tripod and slow shutter speeds. In the Calopteryx virgo case it was cold and after a rain shower. If you shoot in the sun you certainly need a faster shutter simply because your subject will most probably move. But 1/1000s is overkill. This isn't sports photography and it's not a picture in-flight. 1/125s is usually enough to stop modest subject movement. Camera shake isn't a problem at this speed and 55mm as well. --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:37, 10 July 2007
Comment It is still the same butterfly, but a different shot. I believe the head is in focus now (of course I believed tha head was in focus at the left image too).--Mbz121:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Oppose While the focus is more consistent in this one it's less sharp overall. It also has some very strange noise in the shadows which I'm quite puzzled why it is there at ISO 100. I also prefer the other composition. Sorry. --MichaD | Michael Apel21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both the right and the left.I think I made my point. MichaD, there's is nothing to be sorry about. It was fun and I learned something new.-- Mbz123:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
InfoWestern Swallowtail Butterfly
Support --Mbz1 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose If we are really going to "Raise the bar" on insect photos, then it has to have absolute technically perfection in addition to a wow factor. An out-of-focus wing is not technical perfection. -- Ram-Man 22:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Both the right and the left.I think I made my point. MichaD, there's is nothing to be sorry about. It was fun and I learned something new.-- Mbz1 23:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
