Arcitalitrus dorrieni

[TimmyG]

Lawn Shrimp

This is a macro photographer's worst nightmare. You first notice it as it flings itself about a foot into the air like some obscene giant flea. It will continue to fling itself around until it manages to find cover. Alternatively it will scurry rapidly away into some dark crevice. It's carapace is slick and shiny and will put any diffusion to the test. Even it's eye is covered by a thin layer making finding the best focus point difficult. If you do manage to get it to keep still long enough for a shot, it seems to enjoy rolling on it's side or curling up under itself, making it next to impossible to get a decent composition.

Also known as a Land or Wood Hopper, this amphipod is an invasive species to the UK, originally from Australia or New Zealand. It's a terrestrial crustacean, as is the woodlouse, except flattened from the side rather than the top, giving it a shrimp-like appearance. They lack a waxy layer on their shells as found in insects, so struggle to retain water in dry conditions, yet susceptible to drowning if soaked with too much. They can often be seen after a storm as they search for the ideal moist conditions. I found these near the pond in the rotting wood and leaves at the bottom of the garden. They are often found in large numbers and their impact on native species is not yet clear. It could be they compete for resources with other species that live in rotting vegetation, and this includes springtails. No, not one of my favourite photographic subjects I don't think.

Lawn Shrimp by Tim.Garlick, on Flickr

Lawn Shrimp by Tim.Garlick, on Flickr

Lawn Shrimp by Tim.Garlick, on Flickr

Lawn Shrimp by Tim.Garlick, on Flickr


I'm not particularly happy with these images. Although I did manage to get a stack (the third one is from 6 images) my diffusor wasn't up to the job. Also I never really got a composition I was happy with, but thought I would share as an interesting find.

 

[Tintin124]

I think #2 is spot on, think you are doing yourself a disservice here mate.

#2/4 are great

#1 looks a almost impossible thing to light, as you say they move frequently and think you would need a couple if not more lights lighting them to be able to reduce the shininess.

 

[T0p cat]

What size are they. ?

 

[TimmyG]

I think #2 is spot on, think you are doing yourself a disservice here mate.

#2/4 are great

#1 looks a almost impossible thing to light, as you say they move frequently and think you would need a couple if not more lights lighting them to be able to reduce the shininess.

Thanks Bryn. I definitely need to spend some more time making a better diffuser. I still haven't got one I'm happy with for my current setup. I'm hoping to be able to make a concave one, just can't find the right materials as yet. Like you say though, maybe more lights would help reduce the reflections.

What size are they. ?

Around 1/2 - 1 cm, so quite big and easy to spot. They'll jump around (they are fresh water sand hoppers) but easy to distinguish from springtails as they are much larger.

 

[T0p cat]

I can't ever remember seeing anything like that even through my childhood. Number one is the best shot for me. The composition is dynamic and the colours are lovely.

 

[Graham]

Shrimp, now theres food for thought. Great set Tim

 

[GardenersHelper]

I'm not particularly happy with these images. Although I did manage to get a stack (the third one is from 6 images) my diffusor wasn't up to the job. Also I never really got a composition I was happy with, but thought I would share as an interesting find.

You are a harsh critic Tim. They are well worth posting IMO, even without the "added value" of the fascinating background info you have provided. As images, I would be content with them, especially #4 and, most especially, #2, which I think is a fine image.

As to the diffusion, I was processing some natural light shots of a difficult subject yesterday, a very black fly, and was getting bright areas, just as if I'd used flash. That's how the real world is; that makes me more relaxed about the flash equivalents. (Although, that said, I have to admit to having used diffusion once or twice for natural light (flower) shots recently, so I suppose I'm not 100% relaxed about bright areas, especially when colours get reduced/bleached out in some areas even though they aren't completely blown. It's not all one way though - I found that diffusing natural light can sometimes make an image seem a bit bland in comparison to an undiffused version. I wonder if there is any equivalent to this with flash, related to the degree/nature of diffusion?)

 

[Paul Iddon]

Bizarre creature - and a new one for me to look at.

Me likey

Paul.

 

[TimmyG]

I can't ever remember seeing anything like that even through my childhood. Number one is the best shot for me. The composition is dynamic and the colours are lovely.

First time I come cross them too

Shrimp, now theres food for thought. Great set Tim

Ha ha.. I see what you did there

You are a harsh critic Tim. They are well worth posting IMO, even without the "added value" of the fascinating background info you have provided. As images, I would be content with them, especially #4 and, most especially, #2, which I think is a fine image.

I suppose I am a bit tough on myself. Last series of Springwatch, Chris Packham was showing some of his photos (which are amazing) and he was complaining about the position of one of the legs on a dragonfly he had shot. He said it will always bother him, but that's what kept him gong out shooting them over and over again, in the hope of getting one better each time. I could relate to that...

As to the diffusion, I was processing some natural light shots of a difficult subject yesterday, a very black fly, and was getting bright areas, just as if I'd used flash. That's how the real world is; that makes me more relaxed about the flash equivalents. (Although, that said, I have to admit to having used diffusion once or twice for natural light (flower) shots recently, so I suppose I'm not 100% relaxed about bright areas, especially when colours get reduced/bleached out in some areas even though they aren't completely blown. It's not all one way though - I found that diffusing natural light can sometimes make an image seem a bit bland in comparison to an undiffused version. I wonder if there is any equivalent to this with flash, related to the degree/nature of diffusion?)

I know what you mean and there is a limit to how soft and diffuse you would like the lighting to be. In truth though I prefer a "flatter" lighting in camera, as I can always add contrast in post which is easier than trying to recover from too much contrast in camera. Ideally though, although highlights are needed and reflect the real world, I'd like to retain some detail in them (@orionmystery always manages to achieve this).

Bizarre creature - and a new one for me to look at.

Me likey

Paul.

Thanks Paul

 

[orionmystery]

Very nice set, Tim. I esp like #2. Ah, now I know what they're called!