Saturnia pavonia caterpillar

Quite a colourful creature I have to say. I clicked on this because it is not the type of photograph I would take. I just don't have the patience. Thankfully there are people like you who do. 

Dear Jim,

This is a great image! I love your POV and DOF bringing all our attention on the remarkable details of this fine creature. The background colors add a lot too. Nice!

Tim

I like the details and colors  of that creature.As usual it is a special composition.

Stunning colors with an awfully good overall design and compositional sense. Wonderful detail without feeling overly sharp or too strongly processed. The shallow depth of field is imposing. I think it takes focus away from the beauty of the caterpillar and becomes too strong an element of the photo. It announces itself loudly as photographic and I don't see the depth of field serving much purpose here.

Here, the subject is all. If you like caterpillars, this is the shot for you. If not, or you feel ambivalent towards them, then this photo won't change your mind. It's what the caterpillar looks like, and it does have most unusual colors, but it does little else for me. Great "record" shot - if you are into macro shots of caterpillars.

I've always subscribed to the idea that there is beauty in nature, no matter where you look...and this photograph reinforces that belief for me. It's said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I do see it here, along with functional design and symmetry. There is a reason this caterpillar is made this way, a reason it looks this way...and I like the idea that we humans...the so-called highest form of life and intelligence on the planet...really don't have a clue as to why it's made this way.

Also, what I like here is that the viewer really can't tell the size of the caterpillar. It could be large or small, and I think the depth of field helps in that regard. Is the blur due to the size of the caterpillar, or is it a characteristic of the macro lens? It's actually immaterial to me because whatever the reason, it works for me. The foreground detail is incredible, the colours and shadings are beyond man's ability to duplicate.

The temptation for a lot of people is to say macro shots like this are a dime a dozen. I won't say that, because each photograph like this shows us a part of our world we would not otherwise see. This photographer has made the effort to show us a very small part of our world, and in my opinion has succeeded admirably.

Aren't you always supposed to focus on the eyes in portraits? So far as I can tell, that's the case here. And there's plenty of that lovely "bokeh" that we pay so much to get.

What's not to like? :)

I think it's just right as it is, all kidding aside.

When I look at this photo - I see COLOR. The colors are amazing, both in the creature and in the bokeh. Well done.

Would be curious to know if this was hand-held or on a tripod. If hand-held, the DOF would have to be shallow in order to get enough shutter speed to keep it sharp. If on a tripod, then perhaps a slightly greater depth would add something to the shot, though I kind of like it as is anyway. I always enjoy macro because, as Jim said and my brother and I were just discussing this morning, it takes you into worlds you wouldn't see otherwise. This is a creature I hadn't seen before.

Congratulations, Jim. This image - and you - deserve the recognition the Elves have awarded.

Well Jim , it is high time!
I'm following Jim's nature Macro work for a long time, and I think he is the best nature photographer at PN . I'm always surprised of his skilled observant eye , technique, and especialy timing which create wonderful colored composition of very small details of natural life.
Congratulation Jim !

The depth of field is 'right'. The background leaf/stem shape is recognizable enough for context without detraction. The front few hairs are in focus to provide anchor to the composition and the round blimpies to the body shape are sharp enough to define what they are. More depth of field would be a detraction from the essentials that are defined. ie 15 sharp hairs would not define their essence any more than these few; and all the body blimpies (i think i've found a new word to love) in focus would detract from the only visual sense of depth we have.
As previously mentioned, the composition is nice with the leaf/stem shapes giving balance. The initial attention demanded by it's contrast (both luminance and chroma), is held providing detail that is strange to our normal experience, but holds enough attachment to the real world to provide a bridge.
These bridges are what enable and encourage us to expand our minds and ourselves, and serve as benchmarks in whatever genre they are found. Fine photo.

The depth of field is 'right'.

In photography, there are very few instances of right and wrong, IMO, especially when it comes to aesthetic calls. Maybe leaving the lens cap on when you take a picture would be 'wrong' but no choice of depth of field would ever strike me as right or wrong. It just works for the viewer or it doesn't. Though I agree that the shallow depth of field allows for the essentials to be in focus, I find the severe drop off in focus on the body of the caterpillar quite attention-grabbing and jarring, something which the composition and type of shot it is doesn't seem to warrant. I know such shallow depth of field is popular and am willing to be in the minority, but doubt I'd ever see it as a matter of right or wrong.

@Fred: Give it a break......
I deliberately enclosed "right" with single quotes to demark from it's rule context and leave it as a personal "aesthetic call".
Furthermore I made explicit arguments to support why this depth/shallowness of focus works for me in this photograph. You gave your reasons why it does not work for you. So be it that's what the forum's about.

I like it. Setting up a shot like this takes time but nature rarely waits; even a gentle breeze would have ruined the shot.

Having missed the right plane of focus in many macro attempts myself, I felt the shallow depth of field is appropriate - as it usually simply is a feature of macro photos. Though, I'd also disagree with Fred here, I enjoy that the discussion challenged my preconception.

Beautiful colors! I like it

Thanks to the Elves and

thank you all for taking the time to discuss this image.