Spider, Mantis and ???????????????? This might be the same Crab Spider Napabob posted a couple of days ago. I really need to use my tripod more. I think they're in focus until I double...

JimmyTB

This might be the same Crab Spider Napabob posted a couple of days ago.

I really need to use my tripod more. I think they're in focus until I double download when posting.

Although I don't know how it got from CA to NJ so quickly

(Download)

It moved under the leaf so I had to twist and hold the leaf. That's my finger in the background

(Download)

So won't you smile for the camera. I know their gonna love it. (Song title please)

(Download)

?????????????
?????????????...

(Download)

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

That last one has some surprises. Too bad its dead, but live ones are hard to photograph because they skitter and jump. Its a bristletail, and those completely own an entire order of insects (which is a substantial thing). They are 'primitively wingless' insects, meaning they are descended from insects that never had wings. They are have some very primitive traits, and one that you can see here are the vestiges of legs under their abdomen.

JimmyTB

Mark Sturtevant wrote:

That last one has some surprises. Too bad its dead, but live ones are hard to photograph because they skitter and jump. Its a bristletail, and those completely own an entire order of insects (which is a substantial thing). They are 'primitively wingless' insects, meaning they are descended from insects that never had wings. They are have some very primitive traits, and one that you can see here are the vestiges of legs under their abdomen.

Thank you Mark. I knew I could count on you.

EnglishBrenda Loc: Kent, England

That spider is quite common here in the UK, we call it a Brown Crab Spider - Xysticus, it may be different in the USA.

JimmyTB

EnglishBrenda wrote:

That spider is quite common here in the UK, we call it a Brown Crab Spider - Xysticus, it may be different in the USA.

Thank you for viewing Brenda. I've seen many here myself. Probably the same genus, possible different species. It kept turning away from the camera and the shot with my finger in the background was the only one that I got a good view of the eyes.

tinusbum Loc: east texas

JimmyTB wrote:

This might be the same Crab Spider Napabob posted a couple of days ago.

I really need to use my tripod more. I think they're in focus until I double download when posting.

good job,leave the tri pod home.the more you shoot hand held the better you will get.

JimmyTB

tinusbum wrote:

good job,leave the tri pod home.the more you shoot hand held the better you will get.

Thanks for the encouragement tinusbum. I see others hand held shots that seem very sharp. I'll try to get more practice in. No excuses.

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

Various tricks. One being aperture set for enough depth of focus so that hitting the right points becomes easier. I use f/14, give or take. "Handheld" most definitely includes bracing the camera. I am often on the ground (and will even put the critter down on the ground, still on its leaf or whatever). Then lying down, resting the camera on the back of one hand and using a rocking motion to fine tune the focus. Of course its all about setting oneself up to be steady, but also its about saving energy. Taking lots of super exacting pictures with a heavy camera, while not breathing, can be exhausting. If I must stand I will try to rest the camera on a monopod that I use.

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

Look'n good, JimmyTB. I shoot my macro sessions in manual and I was having a dickens of a time missing sharpness where I thought I had it. Much, much later, I found that the diopter was off for my vision needs. I hung a newspaper on the wall with the camera stationary and adjusted it until the print was crisp and clear in the viewfinder.

Of course, I still miss many shots, however, I know it is me and not the camera now.

JimmyTB

Mark Sturtevant wrote:

Various tricks. One being aperture set for enough ... (show quote)

Thanks Mark. I used apertures of f/16 to f/22 so I don't think that was the issue. I do use the back of hand and rocking motion when possible. The only shots here that I didn't have a surface for support was the mantis since it was on a leaf of a large bush about 5' above the ground, I guess my monopod would have helped. And obviously the spider image with my finger in the background only had one hand on the camera. I'll keep at it until I get sharp pictures but I appreciate any tips that I can get.

JimmyTB

sippyjug104 wrote:

Look'n good, JimmyTB. I shoot my macro sessions in manual and I was having a dickens of a time missing sharpness where I thought I had it. Much, much later, I found that the diopter was off for my vision needs. I hung a newspaper on the wall with the camera stationary and adjusted it until the print was crisp and clear in the viewfinder.

Of course, I still miss many shots, however, I know it is me and not the camera now.

Thanks Sippy. I find that my diopter needs adjustment quite often. I must touch it without knowing and knock it out of focus. I guess I'll have to keep a paper or other test material with me to periodically check.

Don, the 2nd son Loc: Crowded Florida

JimmyTB wrote:

Thanks Mark. I used apertures of f/16 to f/22 so I... (show quote)

I was thinking the opposite Re: F/stop. This softness looks like diffraction degradation (softening) to me. When I check optical reviews on my lenses the sharpest aperture is usually around f5.6-f8.0. With my lenses some degrade quickly above 5.6 others hold up quite well. Something to test/research for when choosing a fav macro lens. At home on a tripod (limits motion as a cause) I'd run some tests. Flash at low fractions 1/8th power for instance (in low ambient light) gives a very short burst which will further freeze the subject in tests allowing us to eliminate motion as a cause. These look to me to be in focus but just excessively soft, hence suspect diffraction

JimmyTB

Don, the 2nd son wrote:

I was thinking the opposite Re: F/stop. This softn... (show quote)

That's something to explore. I know when you're that close to the subject you lose depth of focus, hence the need for small aperture. Maybe I was excessive with the small aperture. I'll check out the sweet spot of my lens this weekend and see how tight I can go without the degradation you're referring to. Thanks much

raymondh Loc: Walker, MI

JimmyTB

raymondh wrote:

Thank you raymondh