An insight in a few insects life

http://peksa.tx-shells.net/macro/small/grashoppas.jpg
"Gräshoppa"

http://peksa.tx-shells.net/macro/sma...0028 copys.jpg
"Tistelfjäril 1"

http://peksa.tx-shells.net/macro/sma...0057 copys.jpg
"Tistelfjäril 2"

http://peksa.tx-shells.net/macro/sma...0032 copys.jpg
"Nyckelpiga 1"

http://peksa.tx-shells.net/macro/sma...0041 copys.jpg
"Nyckelpiga 2"

http://peksa.tx-shells.net/macro/sma...1984 copys.jpg
"Amiralfjäril"

http://peksa.tx-shells.net/macro/sma...1973 copys.jpg
"Amiral- och nässelfjäril"

http://peksa.tx-shells.net/macro/small/IMG_1791s.jpg
"Slända"

http://peksa.tx-shells.net/macro/sma...1840 copys.jpg
"Grön gräshoppa 1"

http://peksa.tx-shells.net/macro/sma...1846 copys.jpg
"Grön gräshoppa 2"

All these photos are taken with a Canon EOS 350D and the kit lens (18-55, f/3.5-5.6). Better macro's could of course have been taken with a real macro-lens :)

Click on the pictures to enlarge. (recommended)

Since I'm pretty new to macro-photography (or all photography I guess), please give some critique on what to do better, be it composition, aperature settings or anything else.

i really like em man. i'm a huge fan of macro (though i don't know much about it...). i love all these pictures. the colors are so vibrant! :D swell job, keep em coming! :D

I love the blue dragonfly or "Slända", always enjoy the bug pictures.

The enlarged view is definately necessary to fully appreciate these. ^^ I particularly like "Nyckelpiga 1"..Very nice DOF. I love the detail macro shots are able to provide.

As for tips, watch out for small details or objects in the background that may distract from the focal point of the photo For example your hand(?) in "Tistelfjäril 2".

You should run some of them through neat image, then resize them, then crop them, then add a border.

I think it would make your photography alot more "professional". ;)

The shots themselves are indeed great, just need some post-editing. ;)

conspired: aah, hadn't even seen the hand there. Yes it is indeed my hand, I'm holding back a branch that was in the way.. :p

bigfatguy: from what I've seen from neat image it reduces noise very well. But you loose sharpness. I might try it out on a few pictures though. Borders for the pictures also sounds like a good idea...

/Peksa

1) i didn't notice the hand there, until something was said... :D

2) what exactly is neat image? sounds...neat... ;D rofl. i take occasional macros, and they come out pretty fucking grainy. i'm trying all i can! :D

I really really like all of the shots, the views are nice, and as sam said, postwork could make these look awesome! Bluebottle is probably my favourite :)

Nice camera you got there, good shots. =)

I have a tendency to notice those little things since I used to always do that too. :o

Honestly, I don't think NeatImage would be necessary for all of these. It tends to blur small intricate things such as tree branches (or possibly the flowers in "Tistelfjäril 1"). Borders would be a nice touch though. ^^

Sweet shots!! Not bad @ all for the KIT lens!

Keep it up

Oh, sweet. didn't know you posted them here :)

I love these kinds of photos:
1. they are macros
2. they are pictures of insects

If I would have to "guess" if you were new to this or not, I would definately think you had been doing it for a long time, since the pictures looks pro'. I envy you both in the skills and the camera ;) can't find something I don't like about them. Although I think the thumbnails are to small, (to see all the details) and the fullsized ones are too big x) , A slightly smaller size would make them look even better and you'd loos most of the "noise" if there ever was any, but the sharpness and detail would stay. (Just a thought)

And as for that hand. I don't think it's ruining the photo, even if it wasen't on purpose. I think it just adds a different feeling to it or something ^^

great job on all of them, and don't quit doing what you're doing :D then I'll make you pay for it

Did you edit "Gräshoppa" in photoshop to give a better depth of field ?

Nice to see what certain cameras are capable of :D

I think you handle the aperture just fine. You have some nice composition ideas too! Sländan är det bästa fotot! ;)

Hmm, if there is something I could add to the criticism.. The light in this pictures are what drags them down a little. When photographing, try to be out at either dusk or dawn. Then you will have beautiful natural light photography. These shots look like they were taken at daytime.

To notice the huge differance, try taking two pictures of something.. Like a tree or a bush or whatever. First take one in daylight and then one at sunset. You will notice a huuuge differance and then never take a single shot in daylight after that! ;) Nah, but really, daylight is like nuking the photo. Avoid that!

Also, you could try a close-up filter for your kit lens. I have never tried one, but you will be able to get a little closer. Or when you have money, get a macro lens. If macro is what you wanna do. If not, then I recommend you wait with the macro lens and buy a wide angle zoom or a tele zoom. Very good to have if you want to shoot other things than insects, which I suggest. There are so much more to photography than macro! An interesting style you could try is street photography. Just take random shots of random people. Sometimes you can get really good and cool shots! Check out http://ferocello.deviantart.com/ to see what I mean.

Wtf, I always write too much.. Uh well.. If you have any questions, just ask.. :P
I'm getting my 350D this week or beggining of next week btw. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rabieshund

I think you handle the aperture just fine. You have some nice composition ideas too! Sländan är det bästa fotot! ;)

Hmm, if there is something I could add to the criticism.. The light in this pictures are what drags them down a little. When photographing, try to be out at either dusk or dawn. Then you will have beautiful natural light photography. These shots look like they were taken at daytime.

To notice the huge differance, try taking two pictures of something.. Like a tree or a bush or whatever. First take one in daylight and then one at sunset. You will notice a huuuge differance and then never take a single shot in daylight after that! ;) Nah, but really, daylight is like nuking the photo. Avoid that!

Also, you could try a close-up filter for your kit lens. I have never tried one, but you will be able to get a little closer. Or when you have money, get a macro lens. If macro is what you wanna do. If not, then I recommend you wait with the macro lens and buy a wide angle zoom or a tele zoom. Very good to have if you want to shoot other things than insects, which I suggest. There are so much more to photography than macro! An interesting style you could try is street photography. Just take random shots of random people. Sometimes you can get really good and cool shots! Check out http://ferocello.deviantart.com/ to see what I mean.

Wtf, I always write too much.. Uh well.. If you have any questions, just ask.. :P
I'm getting my 350D this week or beggining of next week btw. :D

---

Yea, daylight isn't good, true. Most of the butterfly-shots are on a cloudy day though (makes the light a bit more diffuse at least.) Still, all of these shots are spontaneous, and there isn't a whole lot of butterfly's around during the evening. Can't say I've tried close-up filters, I'd rather get a real macro-lens. But still, macro isn't the coolest type of photography and I'd rather buy a tele-lens. I have my eye on one.

Nice that you're getting the same camera. I'm sure you wont be disappointed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2xsess

Did you edit "Gräshoppa" in photoshop to give a better depth of field ?

Nice to see what certain cameras are capable of :D

---

Nope, that's how it is.

Thanks for the critique all. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peksa

Yea, daylight isn't good, true. Most of the butterfly-shots are on a cloudy day though (makes the light a bit more diffuse at least.) Still, all of these shots are spontaneous, and there isn't a whole lot of butterfly's around during the evening. Can't say I've tried close-up filters, I'd rather get a real macro-lens. But still, macro isn't the coolest type of photography and I'd rather buy a tele-lens. I have my eye on one.

Nice that you're getting the same camera. I'm sure you wont be disappointed.

---

I know, it's a dilemma. ;)

Thank god! Someone who thinks that macro isn't the coolest style. :D A telezoom is a great choice. I'm using an old EF 70-300mm lens, which is great. I don't know what a new one costs though.. Över 5000 får du nog räkna med. :/ But I don't think it's really necessary for you to have a 300mm atm, you'd do fine with a 150mm. I think I've only used full zoom with the 300mm in one photo.

Cool, thans for the reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rabieshund

I know, it's a dilemma. ;)

Thank god! Someone who thinks that macro isn't the coolest style. :D A telezoom is a great choice. I'm using an old EF 70-300mm lens, which is great. I don't know what a new one costs though.. Över 5000 får du nog räkna med. :/ But I don't think it's really necessary for you to have a 300mm atm, you'd do fine with a 150mm. I think I've only used full zoom with the 300mm in one photo.

---

I'm looking at a EF 70-200/4L USM. Ligger runt 7 000, vilket är en bra bit över vad kameran kostar. :/

Köp ett billigare. Tänk om du inte skulle använda det så mycket? Eller om du till och med skulle tröttna. 7000 i sjön isåfall. :P Nä men seriöst, du behöver inget superobjektiv som ditt första köpta objektiv. Du kan ändå inte zooma så mycket om du inte har ett stativ. :D Fast det kanske du har.

Sorry for the swedish, people. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rabieshund

Köp ett billigare. Tänk om du inte skulle använda det så mycket? Eller om du till och med skulle tröttna. 7000 i sjön isåfall. :P Nä men seriöst, du behöver inget superobjektiv som ditt första köpta objektiv. Du kan ändå inte zooma så mycket om du inte har ett stativ. :D Fast det kanske du har.

Sorry for the swedish, people. :P

---

Jag tänker mer i banorna; ska man lägga ner pengar på ett objektiv så vill man ha ett bra sådant. Sen har ju L-objektiven mycket bra andrahandsvärde, så skulle man sluta så är det lätt att sälja. :) Och vad jag vet så går det hyffsat att skjuta med handhållet i 200mm sålänge man är lite stadig på handen och kör slutare under 1/250. (Bör gå så länge det inte är alltför mörkt)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peksa

Jag tänker mer i banorna; ska man lägga ner pengar på ett objektiv så vill man ha ett bra sådant. Sen har ju L-objektiven mycket bra andrahandsvärde, så skulle man sluta så är det lätt att sälja. :) Och vad jag vet så går det hyffsat att skjuta med handhållet i 200mm sålänge man är lite stadig på handen och kör slutare under 1/250. (Bör gå så länge det inte är alltför mörkt)

---

Man kan paja objektiv också. Tappar du kameran mot nåt hårt så kan objektivet gå sönder. Det blir dyrt att ersätta när man inte är yrkesfotograf. MEN du kan ju alltid sätta ett UV-filter som skydd också.

Själv tycker jag fortfarande att det är för dyrt. Är man nybörjare så känns det dumt att köpa ett objektiv som är dyrare än kameran. Jag skulle nog göra det om jag hade fotat i minst typ 3 år.. Men du kanske har väldigt mycket pengar som du kan slösa lite med, jag vet ju inte ens hur gammal du är! ;)

Det går att fota med full zoom, men det är inte lätt. Man blir lättare skakis än man kan tro. Och på kvällen, då du helst ska fota, kanske 1/250 blir aningen underexponerat. Dagsljus suger ju. :) Köp ett stativ ändå. Kommer du på en enda bra anledning till att inte köpa ett så får du en femma. :P

Stativfästet kostar 1 400kr... Var är min femma? :D

Det beror ju helt på vilket stativ du köper. Du får ju kolla runt lite. Ditt objektiv kostar ju 7000. Värt att lägga ut så mycket pengar på nåt som du inte kan använda till 100% utan stativ? Knappast! Tro mig, stativ är nästan det viktigaste efter själva kameran. Så nej, det var inte värt en femma.

Mja, klart det går att använda bättre med stativ, men jag tror jag väntar med stativ... Och med stativfäste menar jag den lilla ringen man skruvar fast på just 70-200/4L. (För att kunna ha stativ på objektivet, kameran blir liiite framtung annars)

Men ja, nu har denna konversationen urartat lite. :D

Jag har ett 300mm och jag behöver inget sånt stativfäste för att den ska stå stadigt. Stativbenen är ju ganska breda.. Men L-objektiv kanske är tre gånger tyngre än EF, vad vet jag. ;P

Yes, let's end this now. :P