 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / July 2006Macro Insect Photos
Some may recall a reference in this group to the incredibly beautiful insect photos that appeared on the pishmo.com site in Bulgaria. I have been most fortunate that the photographer who took the original images sent me all the information I had hoped to uncover, somewhere, somehow. Not only that, he turns out to have a fine sense of humor, a sophisticated worldview, and an engaging writing style. I am happy to share his email to me: ============================================================================ Hi Hoarcroft, I have just stumbled upon the thread "macro insects" on google groups. By pure chance, funny thing really. The thread is probably long time cold dead, but anyway...I happen to be the author of the discussed pics, posted on the Bulgarian (apparently) pishmo site. I would like to shed some light on thetechnique/equipment I was using. You can just copy/paste my reply on the forum. Or keep it to yourself. Could you please do me one favor however: post the link to the original site: http://www.photo.net/photos/siwanowicz . The original pics are not as brutally compressed as the ones on the Bulgarian site. Also, there is plenty more where they came from. SO, here is some equipment info: Lens: Canon EF 100 mm/2,8 Macro USM. It gives 1:1 magnification. I use F/ usually @14-18. Camera body: Canon EOS 10D, I moved to 20D as soon as it appeared on the market. Lighting technique: I am using Canon 550EX mounted on the Manfrotto macro bracket, on a dedicated extension cord. It's set as a "master." 420EX is set as a wireless "slave," on a light tripod. I experiment with the positioning of the light sources and flash heads. The most important thing is softening/diffusing the light. I use home-made diffusers (alu-foil, cardboard, thin paper), shaped something like Lumiquest Bigbounce. Lazy a.s that I am, I shoot mostly indoors. But I try to make the bugs behave as naturally as possible. This is what they usually do anyway. Some cooperate, some don't; patience is the key. One more thing: any occult signs/symbols/sigils you may encounter in my works, it's all for fun. I like seeing peoples' reactions to all this crap. You can see that they go like: is this guy serious? Wtf is wrong with this sicko? Hope this would clear things a bit! Spread the word. Cheers, Igor =============================================================================== Visit that site referenced above. Spectacular work! - ----------------------------------------------------------- les clark / edgewater, nj / usa ----------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the additional info. I'm still trying to figure out how he gets all these bugs indoors. Must have a greenhouse or something. I've been considering getting an extra Speedlight or a ST-E2 wireless transmitter for my 550EX. This just sold it for me. I'll be ordering a 430EX or a 580EX later today. Business is about to pick up! > Thanks for the additional info. I'm still trying to figure out how he > gets all these bugs indoors. Leave some cheese out in the kitchen for a couple of days. That oughta do it. Thanks! > Some may recall a reference in this group to the incredibly beautiful > insect photos that appeared on the pishmo.com site in Bulgaria. I have [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > les clark / edgewater, nj / usa > -----------------------------------------------------------  SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com Thanks Les. Cheers, Alan To all: click that link. Marvelous. > Some may recall a reference in this group to the incredibly beautiful > insect photos that appeared on the pishmo.com site in Bulgaria. I have [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > les clark / edgewater, nj / usa > ----------------------------------------------------------- Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Thanks Les. > > Cheers, > Alan > > To all: click that link. Marvelous. http://www.photo.net/photos/siwanowicz Yes, it is incredible (what Canon gear can do). > > Thanks Les. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yes, it is incredible (what Canon gear can do). Actually, it's incredible what a good photographer can do. The Canon gear is irrelevant. The same photos could have been taken with Nikon or Pentax. And yes, they are amazing photos. > > Yes, it is incredible (what Canon gear can do). > > Actually, it's incredible what a good photographer can do. The Canon > gear is irrelevant. The same photos could have been taken with Nikon or > Pentax. Perhaps you can share some links to similarly outstanding macro shots taken with Nikon or Pentax? I'd love to see em, cause every time I stumble across a great macro gallery it's taken with Canon gear. I wonder why that is? > > > Yes, it is incredible (what Canon gear can do). > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > stumble across a great macro gallery it's taken with Canon gear. I > wonder why that is? Let's make it even better and go for a book - Closeups in Nature by John Shaw which is considered one of the best instructional books about macro photography. Or take a look at any issue of Nature Photographer and see that there are plenty of Nikon-produced macro images. Web galleries - I haven't went searching for macro galleries based on camera type but I'm sure that someone can chime in. Galleries represent a small amount of available photos. Most pros wouldn't post much of their work online because the images will be taken by others. There have been millions of Nikon macro photos. It's only in the last several years that Canon has become so popular and that's because its digital bodies easily have better specs than Nikon. Nikon was ruling the roost for 40 years before that and it was the choice of professional nature photographers and everyone that wanted the best glass. It's funny reading posts now compared to eight years ago -- back then rabid Nikon users were convinced that only their equipment could attain the shot and now rabid Canon users talk the same game. The reality is that the major brands have quality macro equipment that is required to take quality macro images with 35mm - lenses, bellows, extension tubes, and rails. Do you really think that Canon is the only company producing a 400mm telephoto and extension tubes? It sounds like Bret doesn't think you Nikon, Pentax, Minolta/Sony, and Olympus users can shoot quality macros. Anyone care to share links to your images? > It sounds like Bret doesn't think you Nikon, Pentax, Minolta/Sony, and > Olympus users can shoot quality macros. Anyone care to share links to > your images? I hear crickets. For the record, I didn't say they couldn't shoot them. I said I haven't seen them. > > It sounds like Bret doesn't think you Nikon, Pentax, Minolta/Sony, and > > Olympus users can shoot quality macros. Anyone care to share links to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > For the record, I didn't say they couldn't shoot them. I said I > haven't seen them. And you were implying that they didn't exist. They do. >> > It sounds like Bret doesn't think you Nikon, Pentax, Minolta/Sony, and >> > Olympus users can shoot quality macros. Anyone care to share links to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >And you were implying that they didn't exist. They do. There is also the possibility that he is claiming to be blind. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >> And you were implying that they didn't exist. They do. > > There is also the possibility that he is claiming to be blind. And, Tim, lad, you are trolling the wrong part of the lake. Good luck, and all that. Signaturelsmft Even if you learned to speak English perfectly, whom would you speak it to? >>> And you were implying that they didn't exist. They do. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Good luck, and all that. Good grief. I thought that was a joke, but I think you are saying Tim is wrong and what I said is true, he *is* blind. Interesting condition for a photographer. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>And you were implying that they didn't exist. They do. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Good luck, and all that. fishin' in the shallow end of the gene pool as it were. [SNIP] > Even if you learned to speak English perfectly, whom would you > speak it to? To whom would you speak it? ;-) Peter (Someone had to bite!) > [SNIP] >> Even if you learned to speak English perfectly, whom would you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Peter (Someone had to bite!) Thanks. A number of times someone or other got indignant, didn't see the irony, etc., etc..... SignatureJohn >>>Yes, it is incredible (what Canon gear can do). >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > stumble across a great macro gallery it's taken with Canon gear. I > wonder why that is? <http://www.naturfotograf.com/Fp_gall.html> or the home page starting at <http://www.naturfotograf.com> Quite a few macro, micro, nature images, et al. Mostly using Nikon gear. You might actually like this, since he is known as somewhat of a gear afficionado. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > <http://www.naturfotograf.com/Fp_gall.html> or the home page starting at > <http://www.naturfotograf.com> > > Quite a few macro, micro, nature images, et al. Mostly using Nikon gear. > You might actually like this, since he is known as somewhat of a gear > afficionado. Sorry, that stuff isn't for me, no matter what kind of gear he used. It looks like Ken Rockwell threw up on Peter Max. I blame Photoshop for that mess, not Nikon. > >>>Yes, it is incredible (what Canon gear can do). > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You might actually like this, since he is known as somewhat of a gear > afficionado. Oh come Gordon I am sure a Nikon can do much better then that. I don't think many if any of those shots are even a Macro shot, more like close ups with way too much Photoshop. Scott >>>>>Yes, it is incredible (what Canon gear can do). >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Scott Both you guys should e-mail Bjørn then. He does lots of UV light imaging, which is a better explanation of colours in his images. He also has converted microscope lenses, and made other strange adapters for various lenses, like the Rodenstock f0.75 lens that can only be used for macro imaging. Since both you guys think the camera brand is what makes the image, there is not much point in further discussion. I am not into macro or micro imaging either. Funny thing is that I while I don't care for most of the images Bjørn has on his website, and I don't necessarily agree with his opinions, it is my opinion that he has shown better macro and micro images on his website than I have ever seen from either of you with your Canon gear. So there you go guys . . . you got your Nikon .vs. Canon thread that you wanted . . . have fun with that. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > >>>>>Yes, it is incredible (what Canon gear can do). > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > So there you go guys . . . you got your Nikon .vs. Canon thread that you > wanted . . . have fun with that. Gordon sometimes you are just full of BS, like now. The images are not that good, but I said that I was sure a Nikon could do much better. I have never bashed Nikons (other then the D70 and D50 with are not all that good). I just don't see much there in the images, unless you like rather wild colors As for myself, I don't own a true Macro lens so it is unlikely that I have ever produce a really good macro shot. I don't even own a lens that can image a 1:1 I have done a few close up images but this is not my main area. But I will say that Bret's Macro images are far better then the ones in the link you provided. Scott > Funny thing is that I while I don't care for most > of the images Bjørn has on his website, and I don't necessarily agree > with his opinions, it is my opinion that he has shown better macro and > micro images on his website than I have ever seen from either of you > with your Canon gear. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Different strokes, I guess. Scott makes a valid point. I'm sure there is much better macro work done with Nikon gear than the link you posted. Man, that stuff was awful! My opinion, of course. >> Funny thing is that I while I don't care for most >> of the images Bjørn has on his website, and I don't necessarily agree >> with his opinions, it is my opinion that he has shown better macro and >> micro images on his website than I have ever seen from either of you >> with your Canon gear. ... >Man, that stuff was awful! My opinion, of course. Your opinion, noted... but given the way you state it, the mark is a negative one in your column, and doesn't reflect on the work you directed it at. (The first tipoff being any claim that one brand or another of hardware is part of the formula you use to evaluate someone else's work.) Learn to appreciate the fact that most great photography is not done in your particular style, and whether you like something or would want to take that type of photograph has *nothing* to do with whether is is good photography or not. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > Learn to appreciate the fact that most great photography is not > done in your particular style, and whether you like something or > would want to take that type of photograph has *nothing* to do > with whether is is good photography or not. So what is "great photography?" [SNIP] > <http://www.naturfotograf.com/Fp_gall.html> or the home page > starting at > <http://www.naturfotograf.com> > > Quite a few macro, micro, nature images, et al. Mostly using Nikon > gear. You might actually like this, since he is known as somewhat > of a gear afficionado. Strange stuff, some a bit too manipulated for me, though the UV and IR stuff is certainly interesting. I like his sense of composition though. http://www.naturfotograf.com/Fp_Ferns.html is a splendid picture. Peter > [SNIP] > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Peter Yeah, some of the compositions are interesting. Probably something lost on many viewers. Surprised he is not championed more by some. When the D1 came out, he proclaimed it better than film. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > Some may recall a reference in this group to the incredibly beautiful > insect photos that appeared on the pishmo.com site in Bulgaria. I have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Hi Hoarcroft, > http://www.photo.net/photos/siwanowicz . > One more thing: any occult signs/symbols/sigils you may encounter in my > works, it's all for fun. What occult signs/symbols/sigils? It's all just closeups of bugs. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.