Butterfly House Photography:Tips and Techniques

Well, that last one worked so well, I thought I'd try it again.
Click on the title above to go to a pdf:

Enjoy!!

and thanks to Jeanine Leech (http://www.doubleplaydesigns.com/) for layout assistance!

Crab Spider on Datura

Two items of interest here. One is the neat way that the spider's arm recapitulates the curve of the datura's petal. This is pure serendipity--you can move some insects around to pose them--the arachnids generally are not amenable to that type of manipulation and will usually head underneath the flower.

The second issue is the white flower. For hairy insects (yes, I know--a spider is not an insect), I like to use fill flash to help the little hairs stand out a bit more. It is very easy to over-expose whites, and I rely heavily on my histogram to prevent this. With whites, the luminance histogram (black and white) is quite adequate. With colors, particularly reds and yellows, the luminance histogram may not tell the entire story, as we will see in the next post.

Another Dragonfly...

Yes, another dragonfly picture. I like this one a bit better than the first I posted. This has a softer entry into the frame--the triangle of grasses doesn't come in quite as abruptly from the lower edge, allowing the insect to float upwards. The stem on which the dragonfly is perched is angled in the opposite direction as the grass stems in the background, lending a bit of tension to the image. And I like how the two dewy strands of spiderweb recapitulate the dewy whiteness of the wingtips.
What I don't like--I wish I had used a shallower depth-of-field, so the background grasses would be just a bit less distinct and distracting. Often a change from f8 to f5.6 will be enough to give you a softer background. Of course, I know that in theory--I just wish I had thought of it in the field. This would be difficult to blur in Photoshop because of all the interacting lines, some foreground or subject, some background.

"A DIFFERENT DRUMMER..."

"this way and that

this frog’s cousins

and second cousins"

Issa

translation © 2006 William J. Higginson


In the 1960s and 70s, the underside of every palmetto leaf in the Florida Everglades seemed to host its own resident family of green tree frogs (Hyla cinerea). Sadly, in many areas, this is no longer the case. If the frog is indeed our “canary in the coal mine”, we are in deep trouble.

The lighting here is a bit harsh, (see the shadows under the leaf rib, for instance), as this image was shot long before the days of TTL fill flash with a manual Sunpack 444 on 1/8 power. (In those days, I was using a 105mm Noflexar on the Novoflex Auto Bellows). The manual flash caused the “hot spot” on the hind leg of the larger frog, a common problem when shooting wet subjects. If I were to re-shoot this today, I would use either fill flash, polarized flash, a diffuser or some combination of the preceding techniques.

Silhouettes

Field Theory and Perspective in the Context of Katydids: Part One

How's that for a convoluted title? Don't fret--all will become clear.

I have been photographing small critters for almost 40 years, and have shown, sold, and taught. One of the more common questions that I'm asked actually has nothing to do with equipment, technique, Photoshop, etc. It goes something like, "how on earth do you see those things?" Aside from the fact that I'm looking for them, there is another process at work below the conscious level that helps me in the field.

I have a friend who was a dedicated hunter. He didn't believe in ambushing from tree stands--he stalked his deer with a bow and arrow, and claims that all he needed was the twitch of an ear or flick of a tail, and the deer was his. He hunts now with a long telephoto lens, but the lessons he learned as a hunter have stood him in good stead in his new persona as a wildlife photographer. What he was doing was identifying field patterns.

When we become really familiar with an environment, we internalize the patterns that it contains. The patterns of branches, leaves, ripples, etc. all become associated in our minds with that environment. Although this is a subconscious process, we can call upon it and bring it into awareness. When I am in the field, my eyes/brain pick out anomalies or variations from the familiar patterns. Subconscious: "Hmmm, the lump on that leaf should not be there as part of the leaf; what is it?" And. there it is--a leaf-green katydid! Or the antenna of a praying mantis, peeking out from behind an identically-colored stalk of grass.

This photograph is an "accurate" one in that it portrays the animal camouflaged in its environment. It is, however, certainly not an aesthetic tour-de-force." How can we fix this? On to Part Two!

Spider and Web 2

Spider and Web 1

Spiders and Spider Webs

Spiders and their webs become increasingly interesting subjects as we enter late summer. They are larger than the spiderlings we saw in spring and early summer, and their webs are larger and more intricate. In addition, cooler mornings give us more opportunity for dewy webs.

These two images demonstrate several issues so vital to effective macrophotography: perspective and depth-of-field (d-o-f). Both images were photographed at f5.6, for shallow depth-of-field. If I had not done this, the spider and web would have disappeared into background clutter. The shallow d-o-f isolated the subject nicely. (In this case the subject is both the spider and the web.

After choosing the aperture, I then took the camera OFF the tripod and moved around the subject as best I could (there were pretty dense bushes in front of the spider, so I could not approach from the front) to evaluate the view from different angles. The lateral angle isolates the spider well, but doesn't show much of the web detail. To show more of the web, I had to photography from slightly below the level of the web (with the camera back on the tripod, of course).

Yet Another Use for Layer Masks...

We know that depth-of-field decreases as magnification increases, that is, as you move closer to your subject. In this image, I could either have the edge of the flower in focus or the insides of the flower, but not both at the f-stop I had chosen. And I had chosen a shallow depth-of-field because I wanted the background to be just a soft green, with no distracting detail.

Once again, Photoshop to the rescue. I photographed the flower twice, once with the inside sharp and once with the edge sharp. No other settings were changed except for the point of focus. In Photoshop, I brought both images together with a Layer Mask. (I always make the top image the one from which I will be using the most information, in this case the outer flower). I then used the Brush tool to bring out the sharp detail in the center. Note that there will always be a slight change in size, since when you change focus, there will be a change in magnification.

Once again, is this cheating? Or are we simply bringing to the screen the image as our eyes saw it in the field? Your call, but perhaps another reason to learn to use Photoshop's Layer Mask. But remember, this is a technique that needs to be planned for while you are photographing. I have put together as many as four exposures of the same subject to create the image I wished to see.

Fill-flash with Early Morning Light

The sun rises here at about 6:15, and the light is sufficient for focusing at about 6:30 or thereabouts. This is my favorite time for photography. I love the soft, even light, relative lack of wind, and cooperative subjects. Insects are poikilothermic, or cold-blooded. Their activity level rises and falls with the temperature of their surroundings. In the chill of the early morning, they are torpid and slow--posing nicely, just like this beetle. I occasionally use fill-flash in situations like this. Sometimes the lighting can be too flat, and fill-flash can add just a bit of "pop" to the colors without destroying the soft feel of the image.

Layer Masks for Increased Contrast Range II

Here is another photograph which required some manipulation to salvage a full contrast range. If I had exposed for the bee, the leading edge of the flower would have been totally burnt out. On the other hand, if I exposed for the flower, the bee would have been totally black, and without detail.

I used a slightly different technique for this image than for the last one. I made one exposure, taking care to maintain highlight detail. Then, in Photoshop, the RAW image was brought over twice, once correcting for the highlights, and the second time, correcting for shadow detail. These two images were then blended together with a layer mask into one image that maintained detail in both shadows and highlights.

I have found that using a layer mask to blend together almost identical images is an indispensable technique, at least for the type of photography I prefer. I use it to assist with depth-of-field issues as well as contrast range.

What I like:
The balance of the image. I like how the bud recapitulates the color and position of the butterfly.