Photographing Bugs

adamph · 20 Jun 2007 at 17:59

After seeing a post earlier this week with photos of insects I thought I would have a go myself.

I was using a 300mm zoom lens to get close to them as I kept getting buzzed when I was using my kit lens

It was a lot harder than it looks as they don't stay in shot very long, so 400ISO used to compensate for the shutter speed.

I havent processed the majority of these images yet:
1

2

3

adamph · 20 Jun 2007 at 17:59

4

5

Raikiri · 20 Jun 2007 at 18:09

Not bad although I would use a lower F/Stop and a quicker shutter speed as some of them appear a little blurry. Although they may just be very slightly out of focus.

You should do what I do (and Messiah Kahn does); take a shot then move closer, take another shot and so on until it moves. I managed to get within a few inches of quite a lot of insects by doing this

adamph · 20 Jun 2007 at 18:36

I will give that a try, thanks. Though it was hard keep track of them as they wouldnt stay on a flower for more than a second or 2! I might try earlier in the day next time when there will be more about.

Messiah Khan · 20 Jun 2007 at 19:20

Not bad attempts. I have to say though, you have not chosen the most easy of subjects to start with. I find bees frustratingly hard to capture well. As you've found out they move too fast and erratically, and the black fur can play havok with the metering.

As Raikiri says, take a pic and move closer, take another pic and move closer and so on. Also often(although not so much for bees), if you scare an insect away, stop and stay there a bit, as the insect will often return to where it left off. Also approach insects as low to the ground as you can get, as they will perceive you as less of a threat. Watch where your shadow falls, and try to approach the subject from directly behind as its less likely to spot you(unless its an insect with a freakish amount of eyes, incluing ones on the back of its head.) But most importantly, expect to get a lot of wasted shots to be able to get the good ones.

Mr.Orb · 20 Jun 2007 at 23:08

messiah what lens do you normally use to photograph bugs?

ChroniC · 20 Jun 2007 at 23:44

A simple amount of photoshop can work to make it look more like the stuff messiah does. No offence intended there at all. I dont know if it you or the shallow depth of field from you equipment that gives it this look.

Raikiri · 21 Jun 2007 at 01:22

I agree that going over them can be a big help, very quick go on another one of them:

divine` · 21 Jun 2007 at 01:59

Fake blur in photoshop is horrible (looks at ChroniC), do not do it unless you are very very very very very good at it.

Basic touching up can produce results like this though...

Messiah Khan · 21 Jun 2007 at 09:28

Mr.Orb said:
messiah what lens do you normally use to photograph bugs?

Started off with the stock 18-55mm lens with a Hoya closeup attachement filter to reduce the minimum working distance. Now I exclusively use my Sigma 150mm f2.8.

ChroniC said:
A simple amount of photoshop can work to make it look more like the stuff messiah does. No offence intended there at all. I dont know if it you or the shallow depth of field from you equipment that gives it this look.

*snip*

I very very rarely use Photoshop to blur backgrounds. The only time I would use it is if its a good capture of the subject, but the background is too busy. and even then, I don't blur up to the infocus area as it just ends up looking far too fake. The very shallow dof is unfortunately the bane of my life now. At 1:1 magnification, an aperture of f2.8 gives a dof that is almost impossible to work with. I have to stop down to f4-f10ish to get something usable, but unfortunately this also increases the exposure length. So to answer your question; Its the equipment that causes the look. It might be a look that visually is nice, but it certainly isn't nice to work with.

ChroniC · 21 Jun 2007 at 12:00

divine_madness said:
Fake blur in photoshop is horrible (looks at ChroniC), do not do it unless you are very very very very very good at it.

Basic touching up can produce results like this though...

sorry

next time il take more than 25 seconds, to make an example.

adamph · 21 Jun 2007 at 13:10

ChroniC said:
A simple amount of photoshop can work to make it look more like the stuff messiah does. No offence intended there at all. I dont know if it you or the shallow depth of field from you equipment that gives it this look.

Well the min f available on my lens was around f4, I may try a different lens

Kristoph · 21 Jun 2007 at 13:17

Here's a few my dad took, without any fancy lens, just a simple shot using his Nikon Coolpix 4300. Not touched up either.

Kristoph · 21 Jun 2007 at 13:43

Couple more. Original res for all images are 2272x1704.

Nicos Rex · 21 Jun 2007 at 13:45

Just goes to show that it is more about having an "eye" and technique than the kit you use!

divine` · 21 Jun 2007 at 13:50

Nicos Rex said:
Just goes to show that it is more about having an "eye" and technique than the kit you use!

A Coolpix 4300 can focus at 4cm at what I think is a 35mm equiv of 114mm

You can't do this without buying a Macro Lens (or Macro tools like extension rings) on a DSLR.

Nicos Rex · 21 Jun 2007 at 14:29

divine_madness said:
A Coolpix 4300 can focus at 4cm at what I think is a 35mm equiv of 114mm

You can't do this without buying a Macro Lens (or Macro tools like extension rings) on a DSLR.

I stand corrected - once again my terrifying ignorance of all things digital has come home to roost!

divine` · 21 Jun 2007 at 14:35

Nicos Rex said:
I stand corrected - once again my terrifying ignorance of all things digital has come home to roost!

Though just looking, those shots were 8mm (38mm equiv).

Still, a DSLR with a kit lens at 23/24mm would only be able to focus around 40cm away at a guess, a long way off the 4cm the 4300 can manage.

BUFF · 21 Jun 2007 at 20:53

excellent shot of a Peacock & a very nice Meadow Brown.
I wish that i could find such cooperative subjects in their poses