R7 First Shots with RF 100-500, close-up with butterflies

Mike Engles wrote:

What is a pedicure, will it be useful when I next offer my big toe as a damselfly perch. Does it come with a nice stream to sit by?

No, it's more for us than you! 

I have on many occasions put out sticks by streams or in lakes or ponds that dragonflies and damselflies with sit on,so I can take pictures without distracting backgrounds, just like with birds

Great technique!  Looks natural too (to the critters and to us)!

Thanks for posting,

R2

charlyw64 wrote:

Mike Engles wrote:

I have to agree. What really is worrying as so many images get a lot of praise, when no one actually looks hard enough, to justify the praise.

That's a problem, I was a member of a macro photography group and I dared to point out all these inevitable (it's physics, hey) problem areas but they followed the tradition that Horatio Nelson started when he took the telescope to his blind eye and facing the Spanish Armada exclaimed that he saw no enemy ships.

What an absolutely hilarious misfire of a reference! First, it was Drake who fought the Spanish Armada, more then 200 years before Nelson was said to have done the telescope to the blind eye thing. Nelson supposedly did it at the battle of Copenhagen, in 1801, against Danish and Norwegian ships during the Napoleonic wars. It wasn't ships he said he didn't see, but the signal from his commanding admiral to withdraw. And, as a result of doing the blind eye thing, he won the battle. By the way, Drake also defeated the Spanish Armada. So where are we? A guy who is complaining that others aren't paying attention to detail in looking at pictures gives an example with the details completely botched up. And, what is more, even if the details had been correct, the example would have proved the opposite of what he was trying to say. So you are saying that the others in your macro photography group were like Nelson (or maybe Drake), and you are heroically trying to prevent them from winning their famous victories?

At times 90% of the images in that macro forum were stacks, all ridiculously riddled with worse halos like the ones encountered here.

I have never done stacking and am unlikely to.

I unfortunately fell afoul of the fad - but I had been writing and technical correcting photography books as a part time side job at that time and thus I was also very critical regarding technical correctness of statements. When faced with the artifacts I started investigating what was happening and to my dismay can no longer turn off looking for problem areas in macro shots - when I recognize stacking problems I will regard that photographer as someone who isn't very critical and not to be trusted in their evaluation of gear. Because if these artifacts don't get recognized, what is he then doing criticizing gear where the differences are in the sub pixel level whereas the stacking artifacts may encompass huge subject areas.

What I have done is more than 35 years of macro photography and just know when something is not right, but cannot actually say what the problem is.

I am only 20 years into my macro photography journey and have lost maybe 10-15 images to the fad of trying stacking. I have sort of successfully stacked twice (because there are subjects where you don't run into the problems) but didn't find conical metal pins a subject to exploit for years to come...

charlyw64 wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

charlyw64 wrote:

Mike Engles wrote:

I have to agree. What really is worrying as so many images get a lot of praise, when no one actually looks hard enough, to justify the praise.

That's a problem, I was a member of a macro photography group and I dared to point out all these inevitable (it's physics, hey) problem areas but they followed the tradition that Horatio Nelson started when he took the telescope to his blind eye and facing the Spanish Armada exclaimed that he saw no enemy ships.

What an absolutely hilarious misfire of a reference!

Nope, I was making an as correct reference as those guys made as an excuse why those artefacts don't matter...

Try a bit harder. As a first attempt at excusing incompetence that is pretty feeble.

Mike Engles wrote:

BlueRay2 wrote:

Mike Engles wrote:

charlyw64 wrote:

Mike Engles wrote:

Sadly, the 'you nailed it syndrome' seems to be prevalent on all forums, these are no exception. I am one of natures "yes butters'

One could also say I am a "glass half empty" person...

There were stacks of some damsel files recently that I thought were excellent. To me they looked natural.

Unfortunately the shots of the damsel flies show the same stacking problems as the so called sample shots here (they unfortunately don't reflect the camera quality but rather the processing done to them) just a tad different characteristics. Most didn't need stacking in the first place (those damsel flies are big, thus you have low magnification ratio and thus sufficient DOF if you take care not to waste too much - I usually focus half the DOF into the subject so that the full DOF extends across the depth of the subject) - but around the subject there are the typical swirls of the stacking program not knowing where to stop with the stack and failing to blend the out of focus areas decently. There also are unsharp halos around parts of the legs and misidentified areas as well where seemingly the wrong shot from the series was selected to be inserted. Less obvious than with the shots here but still strong enough to be noticeable.

I thought they were pretty good, but agree with what you said about the actual need for stacking for those pictures.I did notice some haloes and artefacts but, I thought that they were better than many I had seen

Perhaps I just like all pictures of Dragonflies and Damselflies

One of the happiest days of my life, when this damselfly used my toe as a vantage point. The little stream was idyllic

here is the question i like to ask: what anatomic part is it where this insect is sitting on?

showed my wife these pictures and she hailed  "that looks rather rude    i had to laugh :)))   "

Well it was my big toe. I was sitting by a stream in the French Pyrennies, taking pictures and watching Damselflies beside a small stream, drinking beer and eating cheese bread and fruit. I know that Damselflies and Dragonflies like to get a higher perch, as in the past I have put out sticks for them. I had the notion that my big toe might do and it did.

Those are beautiful.  Handheld, you say.  And live subjects.  Well done.