Female Vivid Dancer, Pond damselfly: Is this damselfly adequately seperated from background? Female Vivid Dancer (Argia vivida) Pond damselfly at 1:1 magnification (life-size).

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Is this damselfly adequately seperated from background?

Female Vivid Dancer (Argia vivida) Pond damselfly at 1:1 magnification (life-size).
Hand-held Nikon D5000 at ISO 200, with Nikkor 105G & Raynox DCR-150 add-on lens, 1/200-sec at f/16, full sunlight & SB-600 speedlight with FotoDiox softbox diffuser.
Photographed at South Coast Botanic Garden, Palos Verdes Peninsula, L.A. County.

Nightski

Douglass, You're testing us right off the bat. I think it is. I am hoping you will tell us what your thoughts are on this. The wings are a little harder to see than the body, but does that matter when everything else is perfect? I think this is an example of what you want, when shooting Macro, and I am not just being nice.

charryl Loc: New Mexico, USA

First let me say that this is a wonderful capture. The damselfly is gorgeous and beautifully sharp. The wings are beautiful but are lost somewhat with this background to answer your question specifically. Have you tried color replacement or some other technique to desaturated the background flower?

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Nightski wrote:

The wings are a little harder to see than the body . . .

The wings separate better on download, but I am not happy with the lack of contrast between black wing veins and red background. I wonder if manipulating contrast in PP would help, or hurt other properly exposed areas of image.

Upon enlargement, I also see a bit of noise. Are there stand-alone noise-reducing programs available?

Here is a similar subject with a better background to contrast wings.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

charryl wrote:

Have you tried color replacement or some other technique to desaturated the background flower?

I am PP ignorant. I use a fairly simple program for exposure, contrast, color saturation, sharpness & cropping (Fast Stone Image Viewer) I have PS Elements 10, but am intimidated by the learning curve. I have never tried PhotoShop nor LightRoom, because I know they are even more difficult to use.

naturepics43 Loc: Hocking Co. Ohio - USA

Yes, but wings get lost in the background, especially the tips in the green background. That's the problem with live insect photography, you don't always have a choice of background.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

naturepics43 wrote:

Yes, but wings get lost in the background, especially the tips in the green background.

You are correct. I was concentrating on keeping the damselfly body tangent to camera lens, so the entire insect would be within the narrow DoF. Had I moved just a few centimeters to the left, the dark green background would not be behind the wings. During photography, I was oblivious to background, assuming it would be well OoF.

Wall-E Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Nikonian72 wrote:

I am PP ignorant. I use a fairly simple program for exposure, contrast, color saturation, sharpness & cropping (Fast Stone Image Viewer) I have PS Elements 10, but am intimidated by the learning curve. I have never tried PhotoShop nor LightRoom, because I know they are even more difficult to use.

Baloney. LR is VERY easy for anyone who's used ANY other editing software. I moved very smoothly from Picasa to LR. PSE (any version) is WAY more complicated than LR.

Also, why did you choose to shoot at f16?
I mean, you were outside, on a sunny day, AND a flash.
A smaller aperture would have made the background even less defined. And taken down the ambient light.

charryl Loc: New Mexico, USA

Nikonian72 wrote:

I am PP ignorant. I use a fairly simple program for exposure, contrast, color saturation, sharpness & cropping (Fast Stone Image Viewer) I have PS Elements 10, but am intimidated by the learning curve. I have never tried PhotoShop nor LightRoom, because I know they are even more difficult to use.

Really love the second one too. Hope you don't mind (and please let me know if you do...don't mean to overstep) but I changed the contrast a little on the red flower one. See what you think.

Nightski

Does the color of the background have something to do with it? Is it harder to get that separation with brighter background colors?

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

The color and focus on the body is excellent, though as previously noted the wings are lost in the background. What bothers me the most is the eye closest to the camera is not in focus. The focus is as you noted on the body and includes the eye furthest from the camera. The composition on the second photo is more in keeping with the rule of thirds and a nicer photo all around, though it too does not have the eye closest to the camera in focus.

charryl Loc: New Mexico, USA

Nightski wrote:

Does the color of the background have something to do with it? Is it harder to get that separation with brighter background colors?

In the second one there is also reflection off the wings. That helps a lot in getting separation, at least to the eye.

EstherP

Nightski wrote:

Does the color of the background have something to do with it? Is it harder to get that separation with brighter background colors?

And I wondered if the light that is caught on the wings in the second photo and not at all on the first photo, would have made the wings in the first one stand out as much.
EstherP

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

charryl wrote:

Really love the second one too. Hope you don't mind (and please let me know if you do...don't mean to overstep) but I changed the contrast a little on the red flower one. See what you think.

As in keeping with the rules you need to ask the original poster before posting.

charryl Loc: New Mexico, USA

Country's Mama wrote:

As in keeping with the rules you need to ask the original poster before posting.

Oops. Sorry. Already messed up. I was so excited with this new section I just jumped right in.