arnabdas Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 .<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 <CENTER> <img src="http://www.biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/arthropods/ graysanddragon.jpg"><BR> gray sanddragon<P> <img src="http://www.biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/Bosque/ flyingcrane6.jpg"><BR> sandhill crane </center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted May 13, 2006 Author Share Posted May 13, 2006 Mark, you're a master bird/dragonfly photographer.. this is pure art!<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted May 13, 2006 Author Share Posted May 13, 2006 ...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ky2 Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 <p align="center"><img src="http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Mll/French/Projects/French92/v0pmsb87.jpg"><br><br>Couldn't help it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juri_vosu Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Very nice images, BUT, it would be nice if you supplied the data. i.e camera, lens, bellows.....etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Awesome shot, Yaron! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted May 13, 2006 Author Share Posted May 13, 2006 Juri, I can supply for mine -- the stinkbug (RVP 50) was Tamron 90mm/f2.8 SP AF Macro @f11, The green (RDPIII) and yellow (RVP100F) damsels both are 200m/f4 AFD ED IF Micro Nikkor @ f8 and f11 respectively. Camera body used - FM3A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Arnab: thanks much, but your images are as good or better and in particular, your damselflies are far superior than any images I've gotten of that group. Technical: the gray sanddragon and the sandhill crane were both shot with a DSLR and a 500 mm lens: the former with extension tubes and a 2X converter, the latter with a 1.4X converter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juri_vosu Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 In using extension tubes and a doubler, what should the order be? i.e. camera, tubes, doubler, lens OR camera, doubler, tubes, lens. Which would be better? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted May 13, 2006 Author Share Posted May 13, 2006 "In using extension tubes and a doubler, what should the order be? i.e. camera, tubes, doubler, lens OR camera, doubler, tubes, lens. Which would be better? Thanks." Mark knows better about the combination he usd, but in general 1) you get greater magnification and shorter WD if you put the tube between the lens and multiplier, and 2) you get more WD but less magnification if you put tube behind lens+multiplier. You need to decide depending on the situation and what you're tying to achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Arnab is correct in terms of function. I don't know if there are changes in optical quality depending on the order of tubes or converters (I haven't noticed any, but I haven't looked carefully either -- both seem to work). Another issue with some equipment (I use Canon; not sure what the situation is with Nikon's wide array of converters and tubes): the order of tubes and converters can influence if/how well autofocus works. Usually AF isn't important in macro work, but with a big telephoto like what I use for very shy subjects, it is can be very helpful to counteract small movements caused by twigs or grass waving in the wind. With Canon, lens --> converter --> tube --> camera lets AF work normally, but it goes all wonky if you use lens--> tube --> converter --> camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg s Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 500mm (was planning on photgraphing a warbler :)<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juri_vosu Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Arnab and Mark I notice the background in all your shoots are simple and plain, just the right colour. How do you control this? Do you use natural or artificial drops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted May 13, 2006 Author Share Posted May 13, 2006 "How do you control this? Do you use natural or artificial drops?" No artifical backdrops, my models are probably way more finicky than Kate. I choose a longer focal length and an appropriate aperture to create background blur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malcolm_farrow Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 I'm almost embarrased to add mine to the wonderful stuff above... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 <I>Arnab and Mark I notice the background in all your shoots are simple and plain, just the right colour. How do you control this? Do you use natural or artificial drops?</i><P> Just like Arnab says: natural backgrounds, long focal lengths. If you use a long focal length and there's nothing close to the subject, even a fairly complex environment will blur into a very smooth, uniform background. In the case of my two images above, the background was already simple even without the limited DOF of a telephoto (a pond surface for the sanddragon; sky for the crane). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Greg: I think your snake is a parrot snake. I say this with some confidence only because I was in Panama a couple of weeks ago and saw one of these being picked up by someone who turned out to be a herpetologist. I thought it was a vine snake, but was told otherwise. Vine snakes have longer, skinnier heads with more pronounced 'groves' in front of the eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 ... that should be 'grooves', not 'groves'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 A few more....<P> <center> <img src ="http://www.biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/birds1/ commonloon3.jpg"><BR> common loon<P> <img src ="http://www.biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/birds1/LBH1.jpg"><BR> little blue heron<P> <img src ="http://www.biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/birds1/ tricolored2.jpg"><BR> tricolored heron<P> <img src ="http://www.biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/Panama/ squirrelcuckoo1.jpg"><BR> squirrel cuckoo<P> <img src ="http://www.biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/Panama/ bluecrownedmotmot3.jpg"><BR> blue-crowned motmot<P> <img src ="http://www.biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/Panama/ blackthroatedtrogon1.jpg"><BR> black-throated trogon<P> </center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg s Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Mark, You could be right. I actually have a photo of a parrot snake (just the front end) I took on a previous trip, at the same location. Actually now that I Google around, I'm convinced you are correct. Thanks for the info! :) Although the snake was on a tile floor it was incredibly cool to see it. It took off into a tree and rapidly disappeared. Looks like you had a great time in Panama and took some wonderful photos. Fantastic! Cheers, -Greg- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Thanks, Greg. Much to my disappointment that was the only snake I saw in three weeks. Admittedly I spent most of my time inside a lab, but still.... Panama? Three weeks? Only ONE snake??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Greg: if you're interested, here are <A HREF="http://www.biology.ucr.edu/personal/ MACphotos/MACphotosPanama.html"> too many pictures from Panama</a>. (It will be painfully slow on a modem connection...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg s Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Great photos Mark, really nice! That close up of the motmot took me by surpise... interesting beak. Snakes are generally very tough to find (except for the garter snakes here in Portland :). On our first trip to CR I got to see the infamous fer-de-lance on a night hike. We saw another when we went back to the vehicle. Haven't seen one since. Again, a really nice gallery, thanks for sharing. -Greg- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_bayless Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 American Bittern<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now