Macro Insect Photos

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by hoarcroft, Jul 14, 2006.

  1. hoarcroft

    hoarcroft Guest

    Some may recall a reference in this group to the incredibly beautiful
    insect photos that appeared on the pishmo.com site in Bulgaria. I have
    been most fortunate that the photographer who took the original images
    sent me all the information I had hoped to uncover, somewhere, somehow.
    Not only that, he turns out to have a fine sense of humor, a
    sophisticated worldview, and an engaging writing style. I am happy to
    share his email to me:

    ============================================================================

    Hi Hoarcroft,

    I have just stumbled upon the thread "macro insects" on google groups.
    By pure chance, funny thing really. The thread is probably long time
    cold dead, but anyway...I happen to be the author of the discussed pics,
    posted on the Bulgarian (apparently) pishmo site.

    I would like to shed some light on thetechnique/equipment I was using.
    You can just copy/paste my reply on the forum. Or keep it to yourself.
    Could you please do me one favor however: post the link to the original
    site:

    http://www.photo.net/photos/siwanowicz .

    The original pics are not as brutally compressed as the ones on the
    Bulgarian site. Also, there is plenty more where they came from.

    SO, here is some equipment info: Lens: Canon EF 100 mm/2,8 Macro USM. It
    gives 1:1 magnification. I use F/ usually @14-18.

    Camera body: Canon EOS 10D, I moved to 20D as soon as it appeared on the
    market.

    Lighting technique: I am using Canon 550EX mounted on the Manfrotto
    macro bracket, on a dedicated extension cord. It's set as a "master."
    420EX is set as a wireless "slave," on a light tripod. I experiment with
    the positioning of the light sources and flash heads. The most important
    thing is softening/diffusing the light. I use home-made diffusers
    (alu-foil, cardboard, thin paper), shaped something like Lumiquest
    Bigbounce.

    Lazy ass that I am, I shoot mostly indoors. But I try to make the bugs
    behave as naturally as possible. This is what they usually do anyway.
    Some cooperate, some don't;
    patience is the key.

    One more thing: any occult signs/symbols/sigils you may encounter in my
    works, it's all for fun. I like seeing peoples' reactions to all this
    crap. You can see that they go like: is this guy serious? Wtf is wrong
    with this sicko? Hope this would clear things a bit! Spread the word.

    Cheers,

    Igor

    ===============================================================================

    Visit that site referenced above. Spectacular work!

    -
     
    hoarcroft, Jul 14, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. hoarcroft

    Annika1980 Guest

    Thanks for the additional info. I'm still trying to figure out how he
    gets all these bugs indoors.
    Must have a greenhouse or something. I've been considering getting an
    extra Speedlight or a ST-E2 wireless transmitter for my 550EX. This
    just sold it for me. I'll be ordering a 430EX or a 580EX later today.
    Business is about to pick up!
     
    Annika1980, Jul 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. hoarcroft

    Paul Furman Guest

    Thanks!

     
    Paul Furman, Jul 14, 2006
    #3
  4. hoarcroft

    Alan Browne Guest

    Thanks Les.

    Cheers,
    Alan

    To all: click that link. Marvelous.
     
    Alan Browne, Jul 14, 2006
    #4
  5. hoarcroft

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Jul 14, 2006
    #5
  6. hoarcroft

    kombi45 Guest

    Leave some cheese out in the kitchen for a couple of days. That oughta
    do it.
     
    kombi45, Jul 15, 2006
    #6
  7. hoarcroft

    Tim Guest

    Actually, it's incredible what a good photographer can do. The Canon
    gear is irrelevant. The same photos could have been taken with Nikon or
    Pentax.

    And yes, they are amazing photos.
     
    Tim, Jul 15, 2006
    #7
  8. hoarcroft

    no_name Guest

    What occult signs/symbols/sigils? It's all just closeups of bugs.
     
    no_name, Jul 15, 2006
    #8
  9. hoarcroft

    Annika1980 Guest

    Perhaps you can share some links to similarly outstanding macro shots
    taken with Nikon or Pentax? I'd love to see em, cause every time I
    stumble across a great macro gallery it's taken with Canon gear. I
    wonder why that is?
     
    Annika1980, Jul 16, 2006
    #9
  10. hoarcroft

    Tim Guest

    Let's make it even better and go for a book - Closeups in Nature by John
    Shaw which is considered one of the best instructional books about macro
    photography. Or take a look at any issue of Nature Photographer and see
    that there are plenty of Nikon-produced macro images.

    Web galleries - I haven't went searching for macro galleries based on
    camera type but I'm sure that someone can chime in. Galleries represent
    a small amount of available photos. Most pros wouldn't post much of
    their work online because the images will be taken by others.

    There have been millions of Nikon macro photos. It's only in the last
    several years that Canon has become so popular and that's because its
    digital bodies easily have better specs than Nikon. Nikon was ruling the
    roost for 40 years before that and it was the choice of professional
    nature photographers and everyone that wanted the best glass. It's funny
    reading posts now compared to eight years ago -- back then rabid Nikon
    users were convinced that only their equipment could attain the shot and
    now rabid Canon users talk the same game. The reality is that the major
    brands have quality macro equipment that is required to take quality
    macro images with 35mm - lenses, bellows, extension tubes, and rails. Do
    you really think that Canon is the only company producing a 400mm
    telephoto and extension tubes?

    It sounds like Bret doesn't think you Nikon, Pentax, Minolta/Sony, and
    Olympus users can shoot quality macros. Anyone care to share links to
    your images?
     
    Tim, Jul 16, 2006
    #10
  11. hoarcroft

    Annika1980 Guest

    I hear crickets.

    For the record, I didn't say they couldn't shoot them. I said I
    haven't seen them.
     
    Annika1980, Jul 16, 2006
    #11
  12. hoarcroft

    Tim Guest

    And you were implying that they didn't exist. They do.
     
    Tim, Jul 16, 2006
    #12
  13. There is also the possibility that he is claiming to be blind.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jul 16, 2006
    #13
  14. And, Tim, lad, you are trolling the wrong part of the lake.

    Good luck, and all that.
     
    John McWilliams, Jul 16, 2006
    #14
  15. hoarcroft

    Gordon Moat Guest

    <http://www.naturfotograf.com/Fp_gall.html> or the home page starting at
    <http://www.naturfotograf.com>

    Quite a few macro, micro, nature images, et al. Mostly using Nikon gear.
    You might actually like this, since he is known as somewhat of a gear
    afficionado.
     
    Gordon Moat, Jul 16, 2006
    #15
  16. hoarcroft

    Annika1980 Guest

    Sorry, that stuff isn't for me, no matter what kind of gear he used.
    It looks like Ken Rockwell threw up on Peter Max.
    I blame Photoshop for that mess, not Nikon.
     
    Annika1980, Jul 16, 2006
    #16
  17. hoarcroft

    Scott W Guest

    Oh come Gordon I am sure a Nikon can do much better then that.
    I don't think many if any of those shots are even a Macro shot, more
    like close ups
    with way too much Photoshop.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jul 16, 2006
    #17
  18. Good grief. I thought that was a joke, but I think you are
    saying Tim is wrong and what I said is true, he *is* blind.

    Interesting condition for a photographer.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jul 16, 2006
    #18
  19. hoarcroft

    no_name Guest

    fishin' in the shallow end of the gene pool as it were.
     
    no_name, Jul 17, 2006
    #19
  20. hoarcroft

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Both you guys should e-mail Bjørn then. He does lots of UV light
    imaging, which is a better explanation of colours in his images. He also
    has converted microscope lenses, and made other strange adapters for
    various lenses, like the Rodenstock f0.75 lens that can only be used for
    macro imaging.

    Since both you guys think the camera brand is what makes the image,
    there is not much point in further discussion. I am not into macro or
    micro imaging either. Funny thing is that I while I don't care for most
    of the images Bjørn has on his website, and I don't necessarily agree
    with his opinions, it is my opinion that he has shown better macro and
    micro images on his website than I have ever seen from either of you
    with your Canon gear.

    So there you go guys . . . you got your Nikon .vs. Canon thread that you
    wanted . . . have fun with that.
     
    Gordon Moat, Jul 18, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.