The photographer is looking for generalized feedback about the aesthetic and technical qualities of their image.
Description
While walking around Boyd Pond Park Friday, I saw this orb-weever spider setting up her web for the day. I had gotten some images of her working before the sun rise, and was getting ready to move on, when I realized the sun was about to hit her web. And I decided to change over to my 100-400mm. I think I might have found a new use for this as my macro lens. I spent about 50 minutes with her. During that time, she caught a fly, and I was able to get her catching and feasting on it. She needed to keep up her strength for all the weaving.
Specific Feedback
I know this 100-400 is not a macro lens, but I was pleased with the sharpness and how much I could zoom in without disturbing the spider. Have others found this to be a good lens for close up work like this?
Also, on the first image, I wanted to have enough contrast to bring out the sparkles on the web. Does it work? Is the shift to far blue? What about darker and more contrast? (The other two are just fun detail shots, but any thoughts on them are welcome as well.)
Technical Details
Canon R
100mm-400mm (first image at 300mm, other two are 400mm)
ISO: 400
f/11
1/200 sec
Critique Template
Use of the template is optional, but it can help spark ideas.
I love what you did with the backlighting on these, Patrick. The bokeh of the out of focus web and drops is a wonderful addition. I think the contrast and color balance are fine as posted. I like the warm morning light look and the semi-silhouette presentation of the spider. Very nicely done.
Wow, Patrick, that web is huge. I love the backlit spider and web, and the gradual fade to the darker BG with the bright specular light spots. The color is nice and warm with a nice composition. The first image is a total winner.
These are really neat shots, Patrick. Kind of unique in the way you captured them, or at least to me. I don’t think I have seen anything like it. Very creative.
Fantastic!! I love the detail, lighting and the composition on all three.
I often use long lenses for macro – there are so many subjects and situations where you just can’t get close enough. There’s not quite as much magnification as a true macro, but my 100-500 + 2X comes pretty close.
Your long lens worked a treat on this! The little bokeh balls are so great, especially in the second one where they’re overlain on the spider. And your composition on the first one is super, with the spider framed between the lines of the web and the bokeh background.
Patrick, lots of folks use their big zooms for close-up work, as most of them will provide 1/3 lifesize magnification at close focus and maximum zoom. That amount of magnification works great for moderate sized critters like the bigger butterflies, dragonflies, etc. I really like how much of the web you included and how much she’s pulling on the web in your first post is a neat addition. In 2 and 3, the optics look impossible. How do you get oof specular highlights showing through her body, unless she has suddenly become transparent? They are still fun views and quite striking.
Thanks so much @Dennis_Plank , @Ed_Williams , @Shirley_Freeman , @Diane_Miller , @Bonnie_Lampley , @Mark_Seaver. I didn’t think using a long lens would be a secret, though, it was a cool discovery. This leads to my next question, I think my next piece of gear will be either a 1.4x, 1.6x or an extension tube. So, I guess I need to look into what each might do as far as macro work. Thanks again, and glad you all liked the images.
Oh, @Mark_Seaver I forgot on my other note, the reason the light looks on top of the spider, is because it is. She’s actually hunting and weaving from under the web. When I was looking through these, it took me a bit to realize that. And I had been watching her for a while. Thanks again.
I use TCs all the time, equally for closeups as for longer distances. The 2X gives me twice the magnification with the same MFD. Is your lens the 100-400 II or the older one? The newer II is exceptionally sharp even with TCs. The newer TCs are better than the older ones for things like CA and overall sharpness. Extension tubes do very little for the MFD at longer focal lengths and they limit distant focus very severely.
Wow, thanks so much for the info @Diane_Miller. My 100-400 is the standard RF 5.6-8. It’s nice and sharp, but not like one of the L-lenses. Sounds like the converter is the better option. Thanks for the info!
Patrick, both options are good places to start. It’s magnification that is the key here. Most long teles go to 1/3 or 1/4 lifesize magnification at their longest focal length and minimum focusing distance. Adding a converter only increases that by the converter amount. Thus 1/3 magnification becomes 1.4/3 with the TC. They will reduce the image quality. While I haven’t done the test in a number of years, adding a 1.4 TC to my Canon 100-400 resulted in a reduced resolution that was especially noticeable at max focal length. Extension tubes increase the magnification by the ratio of extension length divided by focal length, so again with say a 100-400, the increased magnification with even a 36 mm extension is pretty small. You can stack extension tubes, but have to watch out for vignetting. I haven’t tried my extension tubes with my long zoom, but with my 180 macro, adding 36 mm of extension results in significant vignetting. Either option is a relatively cheap way of getting to somewhat higher magnification. A third option are the close-up lens filters, these can get you to life size (1.0 magnification) with any lens and are fairly cheap. They do result in reduced sharpness especially as you move away from the center of the image, with the edge sharpness improving as you stop down the lens. If you think your interest is in getting a lot more magnification, I’d suggest these, since you will hardly notice the extra magnification of a TC or extension tube on your 100-400 unless you only work near the short end. If nearly life size magnification is what you eventually want, then you’ll end up buying a true macro lens that will go to life size.
