Map Treefrog (Hypsiboas geographicus)

Notice anything different about this Map Treefrog (Hypsiboas geographicus)?

How about its eyes? How about the different color of each eye? I can't explain the difference, and if anyone out there can shed some light on this, I would appreciate the information.

And yes, I moved the frog from the leaf to the other location. It was done very carefully, with minimal handling to avoid bruising. Amphibians have very delicate skin, and any bruises can encourage entry by parasites or fungi, leading to the death of the frog.
"Primum non nocere" remains the Golden Rule of responsible nature photography--"First, do no harm!"

Ring Flash Revisited...

Hi Bill;

The rig on the Adorama site is similar in concept to the Nikon and Canon "ring flash" in that it has two discrete light sources instead of a single ring around the lens. This allows for some separation and directionality. I notice that the light sources are also more distant from the face of the lens, allowing for even more flexibility. I'm not familiar with the manufacturer, but it might be worth trying, especially if you can adjust the intensity of the flash units individually.
Good luck and let me know how it turns out!
Best,

Michael

Polkadot treefrog, revisited

Here's another image of the same type of treefrog, but a different color morph. The Polkadot tree frog is actually a fairly common species in this part of the Peruvian Amazon.

Thanks for the kind words. I think the lighting is indeed rather flat. One of the drawbacks of ring flash is that the light is parallel to the lens axis and falls flat on the subject. When you consider that it is DIRECTIONAL light that causes shadow, and therefore, texture, it is not surprising that edges "lack character". In addition, the flower of the water hyacynth is far enough away from the leaf so there is no shadow.

Polkadot treefrog on water hyacynth in Peruvian Amazon

This little fellow was carefully placed on the water hyacinth several yards from the place where he was found. This environment is a natural one for him (or her), so the question is: Is this a captive specimen?
I think you could make valid arguments in either direction.
I was pleased with the aesthetics of the image, and was not overly concerned. The frog was free to travel and eventually hunkered around to the bottom of the leaf for the remainder of the day without any additional encouragement.
Technically, I was also pleased--fill flash was used to bring out some of the fine detail, but its effects are unobtrusive, as they should be.

Any comments?

Answer to Bill's Question...

When I find a subject that I really like, I take A LOT of exposures. Specifically, I bracket composition and depth-of-field. If I am using flash, I will also bracket the intensity and direction of the lighting. Often, I won't choose my "favorite"until I see all the images on the monitor. With flash especially, I will move the flash head around to mimic natural light and avoid reflections as much as possible.
The LCD is your best friend when learning to use flash--be patient and take MANY shots. For the froggie image, I made at least 50 or 60 exposures.

This was a night image, so it required full flash--I increased the power adjustment on the R1C1 lamps to full strength and then dialed one back to half strength, to supply some modeling. I used f22 as my f-stop because I needed a lot of D-O-F to keep the mosquito and the frogs sharp.

Serendipity...or, "F8 and be there..."

Weegee extolled the value of being at the right place at the right time when he stated that the secret to a great image was "...f8 and be there...".
He was a photojournalist and his income depended upon "getting the shot".
We, as nature photographers, aren't quite under the same deadlines, but can still benefit from the need to
be aware of where we are and what is going on around us. This image is a pretty good example of how luck can trump preparation. Photographed during a night hike in Ecuador, these glass frogs were in flagrante delecto when a passing mosquito stopped for refreshment. Since this was a night shot, full flash was necessary, but I minimized the "black background effect" by filling the frame with leaf.

more mantis...

An interesting question concerning the mantis images:

"My question on these kinds of things is always "How on earth did you get all your settings AND small flashlight AND a reflector into place quickly enough to get the shot?"
Deborah Hosking

Not as complicated as it sounds, actually.
Exposure settings (depth-of-field, shutter speed, ISO) are pretty much set in advance. The reflector is propped up on a stick or held by a Plamp and the flashlight is held in the hand that is not on the remote shutter cord, which also focuses. And the mantis is an inflatable model.
No, only kidding. Mantids are really great subjects--they are really still until they strike and very tolerant. They are often quite territorial and will stay in the same area all summer if the food supply is abundant. Edwin Way Teale writes about a mantis that hung out with him well into autumn and ate hamburger from a toothpick.
ml

Leaf Mantis, Revisited

Just another look at the leaf mantis, this time from above.

Fill flash was used in natural light.

Leaf Mantis, Amazon Basin, Ecuador

This image of a Leaf Mantis required several different lighting techniques. The mantis was backlit, and I didn't want to totally wash out the silhouette effect of the backlighting. I therefore used a reflector instead of flash, so I could see the final result in the viewfinder and modify it accordingly. Fortunately, mantids are generally very patient subjects, and this one was no exception. A small flashlight was held above and to the left to add a bit of rimlight and separate the mantid from the rather bland and featureless background. It also served to accentuate the silhuette a bit.
The wind was still and the insect and leaf were part of the same plane, so I was able to use a very shallow
depth-of-field and preserve a non-distracting background.

Does it work?