gerrymorgan

<p>The wasp turns out to be a braconid wasp. I've just been reading about them. They have incorporated parts of ancient viral genomes into their own DNA. The virus DNA helps suppress the immune system of the host insect, thereby allowing the wasp's offspring to grow inside the host undetected.<br>

One other thing about handholding this lens. I find that I get sharper images if I keep both eyes open when shooting. I wonder whether perhaps visual feedback from the other eye helps me to not to change my distance from the subject when the image blacks out. <br /><br>

</p>

<p>Thanks, William. I always shoot in single shot mode. The shot that I posted above is one that I took this afternoon. I mentioned that I take plenty of shots in order to get some sharp ones. But the focusing failures are usually not completely blurry. It's just that they are not critically sharp. I took about a dozen shots of the flies and about half of them were sharp.<br>

I never find that I'm waiting for the MT-24EX to recycle. But there are usually at least 3-4 seconds between shots anyway, so that's probably not surprising.<br>

This wasp was on the same set of stapelia flowers this afternoon.<br>

<br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p>Here is an example of a shot with the MP-E 65mm, lit with the MT-24EX, handheld at approximately 2x. The camera body is a 5D Mark 2 but the original 5D would also do a fine job.</p><div></div>

<p>When I first bought an MP-E 65mm, I expected that I would mostly use it in natural light, with a focusing rail. However, in practice, I rarely use it that way. I use it almost exclusively with flash. Like William, I dislike the look that ring lights give, so I prefer to use the Canon macro twin light (MT-24EX). I find that I can use it hand-held up to about 3x magnification. The subjects are mostly tiny insects that I'd like to see more clearly. It can be hard to hold the camera at the right distance from the subject to get well-focused shots but I find that if I take enough shots there are nearly always some sharp ones.<br>

If you were to take this approach, I'd recommend a used 5D because it has a better viewfinder than APS-C cameras. The original 5D would be fine, and it's quite a bargain at the moment if you can find a lightly-used one. If you prefer the focusing rail approach, I'd recommend any camera with live view, because you can magnify the image on the rear screen to be sure that you've achieved critical focus.<br>

Have you considered renting the lens and an EOS body to see if you like it?<br>

As an aside, someone suggested putting insects in the freezer to make them easier to control. I can't condone any chilling of insects in order to photograph them. However, if anyone feels that they really must do this, the fridge would be a more considerate choice than the freezer.</p>

<p>A 12mm extension tube on the 24-105 will get you about 3 inches closer to your subject (at 105mm, you can focus on a subject about 14 inches from the sensor plane instead of 17 inches without an extension tube).</p>

<p>A 25mm extension tube on the 24-105 gives you a minimum focus distance (again, at 105mm) of about 11 inches from the sensor plane, which is about 2 inches from the end of the lens when the tube is fitted. At that distance, most insects will be scared away. The <strong>maximum</strong> focusing distance at 105mm with a 25mm extension tube fitted is about two feet (14 inches from the end of the lens), but the magnification will not be enough for insects.</p>

<p>Although the lens is quite usable with both tubes, only the 25mm tube gives you anything approaching what might truly be termed "macro", but without much working distance (i.e., distance from end of lens to subject).</p>

<p>However, a 25mm tube will also work on your 70-200, allowing it to focus as close as a couple of feet away, or about 12 inches away if you fit both a 25mm tube and the 500D diopter that you already have. This does not give you the flexibility of a macro lens but it might be somewhat useful for insects.</p>

<p>As you also care about weight, another approach would be to buy a dedicated macro lens in the 90-100mm range (Canon, Sigma or Tamron: they are all superb) and to carry a couple of wider primes for landscapes, such as a 24mm and something in between. But if you are serious about insects you'll do best with a dedicated 180mm macro lens (again, Canon, Sigma or Tamron).</p>

<p>Keith, the problem with looking at the current price of long-discontinued products, such as the CS5 upgrade, is that they are often quite inflated. But you are quite right to point out how much more Adobe's UK customers pay than their US customers.</p>

<p>Incidentally, Adobe's cloud pricing is also more expensive in the UK. Photoshop CC costs <a href="http://www.adobe.com/uk/products/photoshop/buying-guide.html">£17.58 per month in the UK</a>, which is around $27, versus <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/buying-guide.html">$19.99 in the US</a>. This is approximately the same percentage difference in price as <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/uk-users-pay-a-premium-for-adobe-cs5-3040088600/">in 2010 when CS5 was the current version</a>.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Jonathan Zaremski:<br /> When you can upgrade at 199 every 18 months</p>

<p>Keith Reeder's reply:<br /> But it hasn't always been that cheap to upgrade, has it? Isn't it the case that only in the most recent upgrade round Adobe has made a Photoshop upgrade that low-cost?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Upgrades have been in the $150-$200 range <strong>at least</strong> since Photoshop 7 (released in 2002). For example, <a href="http://graphicssoft.about.com/b/2005/04/04/photoshop-cs2-info-central.htm">the CS2 upgrade was $149</a> and the <a href="http://photoshopuser.com/cs5/cs5-faq/">CS5 upgrade was $199</a>, and new versions have been <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop_version_history">released every 18-24 months</a>.</p>

<p>It has also been possible to upgrade across multiple versions. For example, CS5 <a href="http://photoshopuser.com/cs5/cs5-faq/">allowed upgrades from as far back as CS2</a>. The $10 per month figure that some people are suggesting might be reasonable would be approximately the equivalent of purchasing every upgrade. The upgrade costs of anyone who regularly skipped versions would have averaged significantly less than that. Either way, the new cloud pricing is a big price increase, quite apart from the problem of losing access to the software if you ever stop paying.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>David Manzi:<br /> One thing that really bothers me about this scheme is that Adobe can increase the price at any time and you're stuck with it</p>

<p>Andrew Rodney's reply:<br /> That's been true since the first day they started selling software! Nothing has stopped them from raising the price of either a new version sold or an upgrade.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not what David means. David is saying that, under the old model, you purchased a version of Photoshop and could choose whether to upgrade if Adobe raised its prices. If you chose not to upgrade, your old version remained usable.<br>

<br /> With the subscription model, if Adobe puts the price up your only choices are to pay the new monthly price or to immediately stop using the software. This is a big step backwards for Photoshop users and David is quite right to point this out.</p>

<p>Moreover, the Photoshop-only subscription price is more than twice as expensive as the old price for upgrades (assuming that you already have a copy of Photoshop and that you upgraded every 18 months).</p>

<p>I plan to stick with my existing version of Photoshop for as long as I can, then seek an alternative. I have no plans to switch to the subscription-gouging model.</p>

<p>And here is the bushing reinstalled on the tube, with the threaded ring in place. You can see the threaded ring on the right of the photo. You can also see another, smaller bushing that did not come with the replacement tube/leg. It was on the old, broken leg so I installed it on the new one.<br /><br />The final step is to insert the tube into the tube above it (i.e., the next leg section) and tighten the threaded ring.<br /><br />My GT1550T is now as good as new. I hope these instructions will help someone else carry out the same maintenance on their broken tripod or monopod.<br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p>And here's the bushing completely removed from the tube (leg). You can see a small bulge on the inside of the bushing that locates in the small hole in the tube (also visible in the photo).<br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p>Here is the bushing partially removed.</p><div></div>

<p>I first tried to unscrew the rubber foot. I applied considerable torque to the foot on the old, broken leg. But it would not move. I think it's permanently attached.<br /><br />The solution turned out to be to gently prise apart the bushing. Here's a close-up of the bushing on the tube. By the way, you might sometimes see it referred to as a washer, but it's really a bushing (it acts as a bearing that allows the tube to rotate smoothly inside the large tube that it fits into).<br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p>I recently broke the final section of one leg of my Gitzo GT1550T tripod. The replacement leg (referred to as a "tube", part number D1155.03) arrived with no instructions. I'm posting the instructions here in case they're helpful for someone. Part number D1155.03 is compatible with various Gitzo tripods and monopods. The model numbers are: G1155T, GM2560T, GM2561T, GT1550T and GT1551T.<br /><br />To remove the old leg from the tripod, keep loosening the threaded ring that you normally use to adjust the leg length. Eventually, it will come off and you can easily pull out the old leg from the leg section above it.<br /><br />Below is a photo of the replacement leg/tube, as I received it. The problem is that the threaded ring that you loosen and tighten when adjusting (or removing)the leg does not fit over either the plastic bushing or the rubber foot. It fits perfectly over the carbon fiber tube, with no room for the bushing or foot. So the dilemma is whether to remove the bushing or the foot in order to install the threaded ring.</p><div></div>

<p>Here's a quick follow-up a couple of years on. I no longer resort to dunking my tripod in water. Instead, approximately every three months, I wipe down the exposed parts of the tripod legs using isopropyl alcohol. There's no need to disassemble the tripod. It makes a big difference. My formerly frustrating Gitzo 1348 Mk2 is now completely reliable.<br>

<br />I realize that mineral spirits is a better solvent for grease (see Edward's point above) but isopropyl does the job and I find it more pleasant to work with. Perhaps the problem is not lithium grease from inside the tripod but greasy grime from everyday use.</p>

<p>Perhaps also consider the Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS that will be released soon (end of this month, according to B&H).</p>

<p>A very nice set of photos. I particularly like your Bauhaus Shadows shot, and the film noir buildings. "Hotel" in the middle is perfect.</p>

<p>In case anyone is having problems with dull colours on prints made with Epson papers an Epson Stylus Pro 3880, I have a possible solution. I recently switched from an Epson 3800 to a 3880, and found that all colours were tending towards brown. This was only a problem when I chose the "Photoshop manages colors" setting. When I selected "Printer manages colors" in the printer driver dialog window, the colours were acceptable. But I prefer the finer control that I have when I let Photoshop manage colours.<br /><br />To cut a long story short, the problem turned out to be that I had not completely uninstalled the old Epson 3800 driver and colour profiles before installing the 3880. I can only speculate that the 3880 driver must have been finding some old configuration settings or the Epson ICC profiles that were installed with the old printer. After removing the old driver (not merely deleting the printer), then uninstalling all Epson software, then rebooting, then freshly installing the 3880 driver, the problem was immediately solved.<br /><br />I don't know what this means for people who wish to use both a 3800 and a 3880 from the same machine. Nor do I know whether there is a similar problem with having other Epson printers coexist with the 3800 on the same machine. Also, as I encountered this problem on Windows (64-bit Windows 7, with Photoshop CS5), I don't know whether the same problem would occur on a Mac. But I hope this will save someone else from spending a long time trying to debug a similar problem.</p>

<p>I once had a problem with RAW files becoming corrupted after they had been copied to my computer. I finally tracked it down to a bad cable between the hard drive and the drive controller.</p>

<p>Dieter, I think the ones that work best are the ones where the person who positioned the camera chose (intentionally or otherwise) a good composition and the animal happened to be in a good position within the frame. Numbers 14 and 16 are good examples of this. I share your discomfort about the dazzled snow leopard. I'm less distracted than Matt by the animals who are aware of the camera.</p>

<p>That's an interesting story about the Smithsonian, JDM. I found it all the more amusing because, to me, "institution" has the connotation they are trying to avoid and "institute" evokes education.</p>

 

<p><em>The Independent</em> has published <strong><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/the-secret-life-of-animals-2230848.html?action=Gallery">26 nature photographs</a></strong> taken automatically by unattended cameras. There are some really good ones. Photo Number 14 is a beautifully composed shot of a jaguar walking on a path in Peru (though I could not help wishing there were not a straight tree branch at the top left of the photo that leads the eye in the wrong direction).</p>

<p>Number 15 is a black and white shot of a giraffe in Kenya who is draped around the edge of the composition rather than in it. It reminds me of a holiday snap by someone who has trouble getting their subject in the frame.</p>

<p>Number 16 is a psychological shot of a leopard who appears to be contemplating a stroll down a leafy path. And Number 10 is a blood pheasant in China walking purposefully across the frame as if late for an appointment.</p>

<p>It's a delightful set of photos that <em>The Independent</em> describes as 'candids'. But does that term not imply a subject that understands the concept of posing for the camera? On the other hand, the oryx in No.4 just might have spotted the camera and decided to hang around for a portrait.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I use the MT 24 with my Tamron 90mm macro lens. As Lester mentioned, the MT 24 clips onto a ring, rather than screwing into the filter threads on the lens. However, my MT 24 came with a mounting ring that Canon provides so that the MT24 can be used with the Canon 180mm macro lens. This mounting ring expects a 72mm filter size, so you will need a generic 55mm-to-72mm (<strong>not</strong> 55 to 58) in order to use it with your Tamron.</p>

<p>UPDATE: I think I bought the ring for the 180mm separately. It's called a Canon 72C Macrolite adapter. So you might be better off with one of the ones that Lester mentioned.</p><div></div>

<p>Mike Johnston's blog, The Online Photographer, has a fascinating pair of <strong><a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/08/voya-mitrovic-part-i.html">articles about Voja Mitrovic</a></strong>, a master printer who created prints for Cartier-Bresson, Koudelka, Salgado, Man Ray, and many other influential photographers. The articles are written by Peter Turnley, a photojournalist and a good friend of Voja Mitrovic.<br>

It's the fascinating story of a man who arrived in Paris in 1964 from Yugoslavia and achieved great success as a darkroom master. It also provides some fascinating insights -- for example, who would have guessed that prints from Koudelkas's negatives are "10 to 100 times more difficult to make" than prints from Cartier-Bresson's?</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>The Independent </em>today has an <strong><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/larry-sultan-the-king-of-colour-photography-2043204.html">article about Larry Sultan</a></strong>, the California-based photographer who died last year. The occasion is the impending publication of a new book of Larry Sultan's work, <em>Katherine Avenue</em>.</p>

<p>The Guardian today has a piece about <strong><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/jul/06/leah-gordon-kanaval-haiti-photography">Leah Gordon's photographs of Haitian carnival revellers</a></strong>, described by one commentator as "performance ethnography". There's only one photo with the article, but some more <strong><a href="http://www.selfharmony.co.uk/leahgordon/kanaval/1.htm">here</a></strong>, and a book is also available (<strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Kanaval-Leah-Gordon/dp/0955481732/nmphotonet-20">Kanaval: Vodou, Politics and Revolution on the Streets of Haiti</a></strong>). The comments at the bottom of the Guardian article are so far quite entertaining.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've written to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to register my disapproval of what happened. In case anyone else wishes to do so, his name is Sir Paul Stephenson and his address is on <strong><a href="http://www.met.police.uk/contacts/">this page</a></strong> (the New Scotland Yard address). I also copied my letter to the Prime Minister, David Cameron, whose address (10, Downing Street) is on <strong><a href="http://www.number10.gov.uk/footer/contact-us">this page</a></strong>. The UK's new coalition government has publicly <strong><a href="http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/regulation/2010/05/13/cameron-and-clegg-to-renew-eroded-civil-liberties-40088919/">stated its support for renewing civil liberties</a></strong> that have been eroded in recent years (under the Labour government and, I would argue, under the previous Conservative government too). Let's find out if they are serious about it.</p>