Bumblebee Landing on Flower (Best Viewed Large)**

I rarely take 'nature' photos such as 'flower' or 'bug' photos, so

here is one in with both. Please take a close look at this

bumblebee landing on this giant Watsonia flower. Your ratings and

critiques are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly or very

critically, please submit a helpful and constructive comment/Please

share your superior knowledge to help improve my photography.

Thanks! Enjoy! John

Exceptionally cool picture. Great capture.

If you look for a 'bug' photo in my vast portfolio, you won't find any; this is my first, and maybe my last.

 

He's a cute little bugger, ain't he (she?). Are 'worker' bumblebees female?

 

I could hardly believe my eyes when I reviewed my captures, though I took over 300 photos to get something like this.

 

;-))

 

John (Crosley)

I don't like bugs either. But in this case, the location of the bee is different from what you typically see. I also like that the wings are blurry, but its body is relatively sharp. Nice somewhat interesting shot here.

 

Guess I should add that the flower looks really nice here as well. Image looks better when viewed large.

I can't seem to take an 'ordinary' photo, or a photo like anybody else -- whether it's a portrait, a 'street' photo, or even a 'bug' photo -- even a 'snapshot' or something as simple as a photo of a building like might be used in a tourist brochure. It's my bane and my glory.

 

This is the 'glory' part, and the bane is it's a 'bug' photo.

 

But I did plan it for good composition; the composition was planned in advance if you can believe it, but all the bees this afternoon were blurred in lower light (this is an ISO 400 capture) in the low clouds this afternoon as bumblebees dart left and right fast when they finish supping nectar.

 

I found out when I reviewed my captures, and only this one, with a bee coming directly at me, has the flying bee sharp because he's not subtending any angle relative to me (e.g. coming directly at me).

 

;-))

 

John

Somebody just gave this photo -- one of my best ever color photos -- a 3/3.

 

That's the new rating system, especially when you let anybody rate.

 

I bet that rater never viewed this photo 'large'. The first two rates were 6/6s.

 

I plan to blow this up way big -- as big as I can take it --- maybe 26 inches on the long side and have it framed and place it on my walls.

 

Almost nobody wouldn't be interested in seeing this little bugger blown up huge!

 

Imogen Cunningham said a photographer should be able to take good photographs at home -- she was right. This was taken in my front yard, while wearing my socks (too lazy to put on my shoes).

 

I am interested if anybody has a similar capture of a bumblebee -- head-on and flying that shows the eyes like this. Anybody have a link?

 

John (Crosley)

John, kick'n photo or should I write buzz'n. I typically dont pay much attention to the bug photos but this one did stand out in the critique forum and then I saw your name so I had to look at it bigger and comment.

 

Great movement on the wings.

 

Knicki

http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=4332314

 

The ratings system is as bad as it has ever been. I only had six ratings on this image from the RR, and two were 3/3's. Brian has destroyed the ratings system/photo.net experience in my opinion. And when I brought up specific issues in the feedback forum, issues that were embarrassing to him, he had me banned for three years from that forum.

 

There were lowballing "hitmen" around the site even when ratings were visible. Myself Walt T., Dave N and others found these guys out and eventually had them all bounced. They were selecting specific photographers to lowball and then at the same time high-rate their own, or their friends images. So what does he think then, would possibly happen after offering the new cover of anonymity?? Well... you are looking at it. So am I and so is everybody else but Brian himself.

Leapin' lizards, I don't give a good you know what about bug photos, but I was hit by a car in January (not bad) and it threw my 70~200 off my luggage and onto my car floor, destroying its V.R. mechanism and it wouldn't focus at all and even broke the little glass window over the focus numbers, so off it went to Nikon for two months and I shot with a 80~200 E.D. push-pull during my next trip to Ukraine-Russia-Eastern Europe (which wasn't bad).

 

But I got it back a couple of days ago, and put my tele-adapter (2x -- also have a 1.4 and a 1.7) on it and wanted to try it out. I'm deathly afraid of bees, especially bumbleblees, and I've never been stung, but have horrible allergies and run the risk maybe of dying if stung (I'm told), and went to stare down my fate with my camera, but stood off some large distance with this huge, horrible lens combination.

 

This one of 300 full-frame captures, and as you say 'kick'n' -- I think it is one of my best ever. I may post it on my bio page, despite relatively low rates.

 

I'm glad to see you are staying out of trouble on a Saturday night -- home cooking up a batch of 'shrooms'?

 

John (Crosley)

Brian had to have a life, and ratings gripes were robbing him of his good humours, I'm sure and probably endangered his marriage and any chance of happiness, as well as energy to make improvements at Photo.net.

 

I happen to like this site an awful lot, and once you've made the transition to considering ratings the equivalent of 'bug photos' as I have, then you're free to comment on them, because they don't mean that much.

 

I don't lust after Photo of the Week, and I have about 10 million views with current folders, so I just keep plugging along, despite not such high rates. Some people just keep coming back and eventually I get seen, even though I don't play ratings games (I left you a comment, but not a tit-for-tat comment and it had nothing to do with anything you did or said for or with me -- I don't do things that way. And I have no 'friends' on Photo.net who aren't honest and 100% above-board, so the idea of mate-rating would never be broached,) or hate-rating, if that's what's happening. But I think maybe it's not so much hate-rating as people who don't really know much about photography or art.

 

So what?

 

When I post a really good one, it seems that the names with the little logos (indicating membership) seem to line up, and eventually those whose opinions mean something seem to drop by to rate, sooner or later).

 

And I post a lot of chancy and not mainstream photos, so they're much harder to evaluate than the mainstream photos you produce -- yours are ever so much easier to evaluate by society's traditional standards -- you have a standard and you excell at that standard.

 

I have no standard for what it is I do; I set my own standard and keep making new and different (and I hope interesting) photos.

 

That is my goal; to produce interesting photos.

 

I think that's why, with so little talent, I have so many views.

 

Don't eat your liver over a pair or two of 3/3s when it could be some malcontent who just had a fight with his/her spouse, rather than someone who 'has it out for you'.

 

Look on the bright side/ you're selling your photos, which is better than any rating system.

 

;-))

 

John (Crosley)

I don't read the forums much anymore (that was one of the good things that happened to me by getting banned). My points were respectful and I believe well presented, yet they were not appreciated one bit because they were also critical.

 

I still occasionally post again and basically ,as you say, try not to let the ratings system "eat at my liver". In the bigger picture of things; so what, who cares? So when you do get your 3/3s as well, just know you are not alone. And, if you do mention it in your comments, you're liable here to open the door to a few other comments likewise as well. Life is often like this...

 

Nice story on this image by the way. Keep shooting John.

 

A hui hou,

Vince

The exposure time on the EXIF data shows 1/320th of a second. I was following my own advice for this photo as well as the rest of all the photos I took this afternoon, and isolating the subject by blurring the background, and also 'selecting' an interesting, colorful background of 'Watsonia' plants and multi-colored other plants such as 11-foot-tall gladiolas which grow in clumps, splitting into two every year -- I have huge clumps of these, and part of the yellow/gold in the background is from the stems of those plants -- the flowers are higher up - the green is from the buds of Watsonia plants which are not fully bloomed.

 

The Watsonia plants are named for the nearby town of Watsonville or vice versa.

 

Probably the former rather than the latter.

 

I have huge bushes of them, some 13 - 15 feet tall, all abuzz with abuzas (Spanish for bees? -- I think my gardener told me that -- correct me if I'm wrong so I don't look foolish.) There weren't many today, as it was cool, and bumblebees are warm weather critters -- they probably were gathered around the bumblee fire telling bumblebee stories marvelling at this 'outdoors' bumbleebeee brave enough to go out and get some Watsonia nectar in the 'bitter cold' of about 58 degress and cloudiness. When it's about 75 or higher, the plants are loaded with bumblebees -- full of energy, ignoring photographers (thank God).

 

(Addendum: The zoom lens, an 80~200 is f 2.8 and with a 2x tele-adapter it is taken down two f-stops, so with a 2x tele-adapter it then becomes an f 5.6, and that is what is shown by my camera when I max out the aperture for maximum shutter speed. It's a pretty narrow depth of field when one is shooting with an actual 400 mm lens up close (600 mm equivalent on 35 mm film).

 

The light was coastal 'low' clouds giving an even, diffused light in late afternoon -- about the most even light one could ever hope for, but although diffused, also fairly dim -- making for difficulty in 'stopping down' for some depth of field and/or higher shutter speed for capturing the little buggers when they were darting left and right -- when I tried to capture them darting left/right/up/down many of the captures were blurred from motion.

 

But this one made all the blurred ones worthwhile. If I just waited for the proper circumstances where the ligth was 'just right' instead of 'making do' I never would have made this capture.

 

By the way, Nikkor lenses, especially the S (silent wave) lenses with their quick focusing give stunning quality when coupled with a tele-adapter manufactured just to match them -- all are custom made of highest optical quality and matched to the lenses. I think I noticed in my viewfinder a little vignetting, but I didn't notice any on my captures so that may have been a function of the viewfinder only.

 

John (Crosley)

"I am interested if anybody has a similar capture of a bumblebee -- head-on and flying that shows the eyes like this. Anybody have a link?"

 

John - I took this picture last year; it's not nearly as good as yours but I thought I'd share...

 

Sorry to 'hear' you were in an accident but happy that you weren't seriously injured and your gear was salvageable. Now, I know I am not your mother but you really should carry an epi pen with you if you are not already.

 

Shrooms are highly popular in this area.

I was specifically thinking of a bumblebee, head-on. I took maybe 250 of the suckers from the side yesterday, though lighting was a problem (coastal low clouds and the suckers' quick movement made stopping their movement somewhat difficult even at iso 400 and my lens outfit had a maximum of f 5.6). They tended to dart from right to left and vice versa while this one is coming at me head on (I got one real sharp from the rear also, but who wants to look at a bee's butt?)

 

Thanks for your contribution.

 

John (Crosley)

Here's the deal: No doctor has said 'You'll definitely die if you get stung, it's just that my environmental allergies are off the board in all categories to everything -- although some have suggested you have to be 'sensitized' once to have a reaction later, to which I have a question, and now I'll pose it to my physician, especially as the 'killer bees' move north.

 

Bumblebees have fierce stingers, but they are intent on feeding, and if you don't get between them and their flowers, they'll buzz around you (whew!)

 

I thought in an earlier post that they arrested all the 'shroom growers/ are they back? And do they taste good? Do you mix them with eggs and or veal sliced real thin and cook them in wine or cream sauce over a 'quick' heat? Or is there some other means of ingestion that involves Indian chants?

 

John

I know a man of amazing photo skills -- a one-time pro who runs a processing store and now is re-entering the pro field.

 

I took this photo to him and asked him about cropping suggestions, thinking maybe to crop the bee and part of the flower.

 

'Just leave it as it is', he told me.

 

I said, that maybe it wouldn't show well on a thumbnail site like PN, and it appears some have rated it without viewing it 'large', because this photo does look better the 'larger' one views it, as I understand the ratings.

 

'No', he said, 'just don't crop it at all, that's my opinion. Just work on the 'saturation.'

 

This is a full-frame capture and without anything special done to it except some minor 'sharpening' and contrast enhancement (no 'saturation' enhancement except that done in camera and as is part of 'contrast enhancement' in Photoshop CS2).

 

John (Crosley)

They did arrest or at least antagonize many of them years ago. Funny, the people I have met in my life's journey and what they have been arrested for...tree hugging, fungus growing, and other odd habits.

 

Damn fine photo. I think I may even try to imitate it at school tomorrow. We have some bushes in the butterfly garden that attract tons of bumble bees. I'll let you know what I come up with.

 

on a side note what if you cropped this to just the left fourth?

Regarding arrests and the law, I took a photo of two girls walking past some 5-foot tall weeds from my car across a major road on this same flash card (the very same one as this capture) and their mothers called the cops on me and 20 minutes later two (slightly embarrassed) sheriff's deputies pulled me over to ask for 'identification'; mom had called them, feeling she had a right to determine who photographed her daughter on a public sidewalk from across a busy highway -- fat chance, as the cops told her.

 

About trying to replicate this photo -- good luck. I think this one may be a once in a lifetime capture -- cliches are cliches because everyone has seen one 'just like it' before, and I think the reason people like this one is because the little bugger's cute and not a cliche.

 

Cliche bee photos either show a stinger or show the bee supping.

 

Here are the views commonly taken: 1. The bee's on the flower and its shape is contorted in the flower, or clear against the flower -- a true Macro photo, and if not Macro, then probably a failure as the bee gets lost on the flower's surface, and also very hard to compose if not Macro. 2. A bee in partial silhouette at the side of a plant flower, supping at a flower, with its head partly in a flower though flying, or ready to alight on a flower, but its stinger hanging heavily in the back -- looking somewhat like a miniature warplane with a little 'missile' or 'tailgun' in the back. (In fact WWII plane tailgunners often used paintings of 'bees' on the back to illustrate the power of their guns -- true stingers.)

 

To get a little sucker flying dead on to the camera, in a composition like this -- well there was more luck than I'd care to admit. (well, I guess I just admitted it, didn't I? I took more than my share of the other views as well).

 

And the lighting was just right for getting this guy just in focus with his wings flapping away, but his body still -- any brighter and I might have been able to choose a higher shutter speed and might have stopped his wings in mid-flap for an unnatural look (note the shutter speed at 1/320th but 1/500th yields about the same. (shooting hint for Monday).

 

I'd love to look at whatever you get; though I still am not convinced that bug photos are worth a bucket of warm spit (apologies to John Nance Garner, former US Vice President commenting on the worth of his office, but I don't actually think he said the word 'spit', if you get my meaning. . . .)

 

I'll buy you a dinner at the best restaurant in town if you can take a more appealing photo -- would that be Sizzler or Applebee's?

 

I'll spring for the finest steak at Applebee's. Is that Bourbon Street Steak smothered with 'shrooms?

 

Have good shooting and practice your Indian chants. Maybe past befriending of tree huggers will have brought you good Karma with the bees.

 

As to the cropping suggestion: a forum like Photo.net with its thumbnail presentation virtually begs for showing the bee 'large', but I'm happy with the crop as it is, and printing this photo super-large, just so the viewers will be drawn to the bee (viewers always are drawn to sharpness within blurriness -- a fundamental point of composition). In that way, since this photo is already 'saturated' throughout with color (without the use of Photoshop), this is the perfect photo for blowing up 'large'. It's a Nikon D200 capture (I had it wrong in original post, as a D2X, as they feel the same when the my D200s have their battery packs on the bottom, and the firmware, etc. is virtually the same).

 

;-)

 

John (Crosley)

Hola, Knicki ???

 

Beware the stinger of this abejorro. I looked it up -- bumblebee in Spanish.

 

This picture shows a double thingy at the end.

 

Either it has crossed rear legs, or it is has a double stinger

 

Watch yourself.

 

Regards,

 

John (Crosley)

Knicki --- Here is an attached version of the above photo, showing much larger the size of what appears to be double stinger(s).

 

Best wishes.

 

John (Crosley)

I went out with every intention to get a bee shot today. I went to the flowering bushes we have that bees normally swarm and lo and behold there were no blooms and as the wind rushed through my hair sweeping it into my eyes it dawned on me there would be no bees in this type of wind. Attached is what I ended up with.

That tree looks almost anthropomorphic (in a female sort of way) . . . and almost huggable.

 

;-))

 

John

I have a shot like this, people always stop and stare at the bee. My backyard is full of them. Photo quality is excellent, it is always hard to get the "bee color". I wondered what speed this was shot at. I get wing-blur (new word) at 1/100 but they freeze at 1/500. I like the wing blur effect as shown in your photo. Nice color balance. I really like the shot.

That if you get 'wing blur' at 1/100th of a sec. and freezing at 1/500th of a second, it might be important to experiment with what is in between, as I did.

 

But then I used a longer lens.

 

Of course this bee also was coming straight towards the camera, or at least was not crossing (subtending) an angle of the photo, which would have made this photo impossible -- this is a rare photo indeed, especially if you understand how hard it is to get a bumblebee in focus with extremely narrow depth of field. You actually have to get the adjacent flowers in focus and hope the bumble bee enters that plane of focus too, then snap the shutter, and he/she too will be in focus. Of course the shutter speed determines how the wings will appear, as well as the lens length, whether the bee was crossing the field of view or heading on towards the camera (as here).

 

I never shot insects before (or since).

 

So, this is a one and only.

 

I profess to wanting to be a 'man for all seasons' and I wanted to show the 'bug photographers' (macro guys/gals) that I could do so too.

 

I hope I succeeded; I think you indicate I did.

 

For which I am very thankful, and especially for your comment.

 

(It helps to shoot several hundreds shots, to learn how to get the background blur - bokeh - and color right, as here, also.)

 

Best to you.

 

John (Crosley)