Thanks to Kris Smith, I corrected the name of this beetle, I mistakenly thought it was a Blister Beetle, they are similar in shape but a different species. Thanks, Kris!
Critique Style Requested:Standard
The photographer is looking for generalized feedback about the aesthetic and technical qualities of their image.
Description
Not a great image by any stretch but it’s a start for this season.
I think this is a Blister Beetle but I’m not 100% sure, they come in a wide variety of colors but the shape is the same as far as I can tell.
I was after a shot of the flower but this one wasn’t very photogenic IMHO, but, when I noticed the little beetle, it seemed to add enough interest to take a shot.
I’m hoping to find a jumping spider or maybe a crab spider.
Specific Feedback
Too Snapshot looking?
The colors seen in the BG were there but the flash hid them pretty well so I added them in post to keep it from having such a stark black BG.
Does the BG look OK?
Does anyone have an ID on the flower?
Any other comments and/or critique is very welcome!
Technical Details
a7riv, 90mm macro, HH, f/16, 1/250s, ISO 100, remote flash, 1:1.5 magnification, Ps for processing.
What a cool composition! Not at all snapshot looking, although I think the exposure could come up a tad (at least on the bug itself). It’s a Goldenrod soldier beetle - a very important pollinator for many flowers. They’re quite striking in appearance and pretty docile. Nicely done. The bg is a bit dark, but it suits the starkness of the flower (no help there, sorry) and the beetle stands out well.
Ah!, Thanks a bunch for that! As soon as I read what you wrote, it dawned on me that my ID was wrong, Senior moment?
I was somehow of mind that it was a Blister, the shape is very similar but you are so right!
I’ll change the title.
Thanks a bunch for the kind words on the image as well! I was really hoping I could get a good shot of the flower itself but nothing I tried seemed to work.
You’re right about notching up the exposure on the beetle, too so I’ll see what I can do.
Merv, this is not a snapshot type of image. I think you did a fine job capturing this. And lightening as @Kris_Smith suggested helps make the beetle stand out nicely.
Thank you @Shirley_Freeman, your thoughts are valuable to me, you are an experienced and talented photographer, especially when it comes to macro and closeups! Thank you!
@Jens_Ober, Thank you for your kind words as well, I really appreciate it!
I was a little on the fence about the flower on the right edge as well but it seemed to add a bit of strength to the stem if that makes any sense, but if it is a distraction, maybe I should remove it. I’ll remove it and see what the difference is. Thanks for mentioning what was distracting for you!
As for the lens I use, it’s a Sony 90mm macro, it has a 1:1 magnification ratio and it has image stabilization which is really important to me for handheld shots at high magnifications. I can get by with shutter speeds as low as 1/30s HH with stabilization.
I tried the Sigma 105mm macro but it didn’t have image stabilization and that became an issue for handheld at 1:1, even the in body stabilization wasn’t enough.
I don’t I have shaky hands at all, it’s just that at high magnifications, even very tiny movements become unmanageable unless your shutter speed is quite high. If you’re using a flash and have the shutter speed at a minimum of 1/250s, then it’s manageable but anything less than 1/250s it’s not IMHO.
I tried Sigma on a tripod at 1:1 and even then it was difficult at slow shutter speeds unless I used a remote shutter trigger (After letting the camera and tripod settle, but, wind can influence it even on a very sturdy tripod.)
So in the end, I sold the Sigma 105mm and bought the Sony 90mm and its been pleasant to use handheld, no regrets.
This shot was HH at 1/250s but it was pretty windy.
Don’t get me wrong, the Sigma is a very sharp lens and the build quality is great but no image stabilization was a deal breaker for me.
Another plus for the Sony was the focus ring, I can simply slide the ring forward for AF, or slide it toward the camera for MF, that is a very handy feature for me since my hand is usually on the focus ring anyway.
Yes, that makes sense to me. I’m curious to see what you decide.
Thank you very much for your detailed reply.
I’m a little bit surprised that the missing image stabilization makes the difference. So I’m glad you pointed that out.
So far I have used a Laowa 100mm macro lens. It offers up to 2:1 magnification ratio but no autofocus. I had thought that the in-body stabilization was doing the job and I blamed the MF for the blurred shots.
Definitely! Thanks, again.
Thank you for your kind words about my work. I really appreciate it.
Merv, thank you for your kind comment about my photography, now for me to live up to it! I like image stabilization too, and for my 180 macro lens, (that doesn’t have it) I was glad that the R5 has in body stabilization, which now makes that lens more user friendly for me.
I had an episode a while back where I thought there was something wrong with my Sony 90mm lens, I couldn’t get a sharp image no matter what I did, I was shooting at 1:1, HH at about 1/100s with the lens held against a tree trunk, but no luck, I was getting frustrated before I realized that I had somehow accidentally switched off the IS on the lens Argh!
I have a few really old manual lenses (manual focus and certainly no stabilization), the in body stabilization can be set for specific focal lengths and I have always been able to get sharp shots HH at as little as 1/30s but the low magnification is the key element that makes it possible.
I was worried that my camera wasn’t detecting the focal length of the Sigma 105 but when I tried to set it manually, that setting was grayed out and was set to “Auto” in the main menu.
In case you weren’t aware, the in body stabilization uses the lens’s focal length to determine how the accelerometers control the dampening. Whenever I have a manual non-electronic lens attached I have to manually set the focal length I’m using at the time, that setting is called “Steady Shot Adjust” on Sony cameras, however, that’s done automatically with most electronic lenses if the steady shot adjust setting is on “Auto” rather than “Manual”.
With your 100mm Laowa lens, since it was designed for your camera it should be detecting the focal length automatically but it might be worth the trouble to check the camera settings to see if it really is, it could be that you need to set it manually for 100mm.
And it’s possible that your camera is set for manual adjust instead of auto when the Laowa lens is attached. Anyway, it might be worth checking it just to be sure.
Another note about the Sony 90mm, I found myself using “Small Spot AF” quite a bit unless I’m doing a stack series or if I want to do something specific with the DOF. The AF is very reliable on that lens even at 1:1, there is a focus distance limiter switch on the lens body and that comes in real handy.
No need to apologize. Thank you for taking the time.
In fact, I was not aware that this setting existed. And it may well have been part of the problem. The Laowa lens is a manual non-electronic lens. It didn’t even provide the aperture or focal length for the RAW file metadata.
Thanks again, I have now removed the Sigma from the shopping cart.
