Bugged! - Questions on Composition

This little critter was in my kitchen and got it to sign a modelling contract.

My questions are: How much of the background is desirable when taking these kinds of shots? Is really close better than slightly back (particulary 3rd and 4th)? Does the texture on the rail in the second shot add or subtract from the image? How much of the subject should be in focus?

Are the answers something other than: "Depends?" I kinda like all of them. I'm curious what others think.



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150886



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150889



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150890



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150891

Should this have been shot with better depth of field?



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150887

--
DAV
Washington, DC
http://www.pbase.com/dvavra

4336 to me is a more interesting bug. I like 4331 the best as the wing sweeps back nicely. Generally in bug photography, the eyes should be the item in best focus. Just like people. The fly (?) has very dark and seemingly non-reflective eyes which compounds the situation. Depth of field is very subjective. Something that is too detailed and that has too much depth of field will tend to be too distractive for the viewer with his/her eyes not able to lock on any particular part of the subject. I would focus (figuratively) on getting the eyes and part of the head in focus (literally). On 4331, the near eye which is what you want in focus, is out-of-focus and the far eye appears to be sharp. the use of the white wood to add reflective light was a good idea.

Rick

Rick

Dave Vavra said:

This little critter was in my kitchen and got it to sign a
modelling contract.

My questions are: How much of the background is desirable when
taking these kinds of shots? Is really close better than slightly
back (particulary 3rd and 4th)? Does the texture on the rail in the
second shot add or subtract from the image? How much of the subject
should be in focus?

Are the answers something other than: "Depends?" I kinda like all
of them. I'm curious what others think.



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150886



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150889



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150890



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150891

Should this have been shot with better depth of field?



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150887

--
DAV
Washington, DC
http://www.pbase.com/dvavra

Click to expand...

--
It's a tough job, living in Hawaii, but someone has to do it!!!

Powered By Sigma..........Empowered By FOVEON..........

http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home

Dave,

There are some serious legal questions here. First is the model of legal age? Second, do you have a model release? Third, I don't see any clothing which raises the issue of NUDE models on this site - highly inappropriate. lol.

Personally, I think that the first image has about the right amount of white space surrounding it. Let's face it, on a counter top there isn't exactly a whole lot of scenery to be concerned about for composition purposes!

Cliff.

Dave Vavra said:

This little critter was in my kitchen and got it to sign a
modelling contract.

My questions are: How much of the background is desirable when
taking these kinds of shots? Is really close better than slightly
back (particulary 3rd and 4th)? Does the texture on the rail in the
second shot add or subtract from the image? How much of the subject
should be in focus?

Are the answers something other than: "Depends?" I kinda like all
of them. I'm curious what others think.



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150886



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150889



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150890



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150891

Should this have been shot with better depth of field?



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150887

--
DAV
Washington, DC
http://www.pbase.com/dvavra

Click to expand...

--
Cliff. Johnston

I appreciate the comments, Rick.

Funny, I didn't notice the near eye was OOF until you mentioned it. Maybe I should return mine for service?

--
DAV
Washington, DC
http://www.pbase.com/dvavra

rick decker said:

Rick

Rick

Dave Vavra said:

This little critter was in my kitchen and got it to sign a
modelling contract.

My questions are: How much of the background is desirable when
taking these kinds of shots? Is really close better than slightly
back (particulary 3rd and 4th)? Does the texture on the rail in the
second shot add or subtract from the image? How much of the subject
should be in focus?

Are the answers something other than: "Depends?" I kinda like all
of them. I'm curious what others think.



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150886



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150889



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150890



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150891

Should this have been shot with better depth of field?



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150887

--
DAV
Washington, DC
http://www.pbase.com/dvavra

Click to expand...

--
It's a tough job, living in Hawaii, but someone has to do it!!!

Powered By Sigma..........Empowered By FOVEON..........

http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home

Click to expand...

Cliff. Johnston said:

Dave,

There are some serious legal questions here. First is the model of
legal age?

Click to expand...

Definitely mature stage.

Cliff. Johnston said:

Second, do you have a model release?

Click to expand...

Was in the contract (I think).

Cliff. Johnston said:

Third, I don't see any clothing which raises the issue of NUDE models on this site - highly inappropriate. lol.

Click to expand...

Hey! 3rd and 4th show the clothing. Nudity cleverly conceal in the others by artful placement of a translucent fan (er, wing).

--

--
DAV
Washington, DC
http://www.pbase.com/dvavra

Cliff. Johnston said:

Personally, I think that the first image has about the right amount
of white space surrounding it. Let's face it, on a counter top
there isn't exactly a whole lot of scenery to be concerned about
for composition purposes!

Cliff.

Dave Vavra said:

This little critter was in my kitchen and got it to sign a
modelling contract.

My questions are: How much of the background is desirable when
taking these kinds of shots? Is really close better than slightly
back (particulary 3rd and 4th)? Does the texture on the rail in the
second shot add or subtract from the image? How much of the subject
should be in focus?

Are the answers something other than: "Depends?" I kinda like all
of them. I'm curious what others think.



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150886



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150889



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150890



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150891

Should this have been shot with better depth of field?



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150887

--
DAV
Washington, DC
http://www.pbase.com/dvavra

Click to expand...

--
Cliff. Johnston

Click to expand...

Dave,
I like img4333 most.

However,

the most subtle detail is an eye. These bugs have compound eyes, easily seen on flies, more difficult to get right on bees an butterflies - it is nice to be able to see their structure.

Germ Wind has some of the best butterfly shots around - try learning from these.

Also interesting is the "wing folding mechanism" - so I would try to focus on an eye and align the camera axis in such a way that the place when wing attaches to the body is about same distance from the lens - I have attempted that here:

http://www.pbase.com/image/28108823/medium.jpg

. I would try to cover the rest with DOF, closing the lens to something like f:11 ( F-16 max) , as closing more would reduce the resolution through diffraction.

You might want to bracket the focusing, as stopping the lens moves the focus slightly.

My macro shots usually suffer from not enough DOF, except for the ones where I got too much distracting background. :-(

I guess I sort of like this DOF:

http://www.pbase.com/image/28107683 ; (warning, large original)

Hope it makes sense.

Cheers,
Wojtek

Dave Vavra said:

This little critter was in my kitchen and got it to sign a
modelling contract.

My questions are: How much of the background is desirable when
taking these kinds of shots? Is really close better than slightly
back (particulary 3rd and 4th)? Does the texture on the rail in the
second shot add or subtract from the image? How much of the subject
should be in focus?

Are the answers something other than: "Depends?" I kinda like all
of them. I'm curious what others think.



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150886



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150889



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150890



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150891

Should this have been shot with better depth of field?



http://www.pbase.com/image/29150887

--
DAV
Washington, DC
http://www.pbase.com/dvavra

Click to expand...

Hi Dave,

I like the 4333 and 4331 the best, and the 4333 is the sharpes but like Rick said about the eyes...
c
--

'Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great.' Mark Twain



http://www.pbase.com/champa
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
Join my 50mm ex macro army!