Critique Memories of Spring

[TimmyG]

@LCPete posted a question recently around using extension tubes with natural light. Although I think he's hoping to get a bit closer it made me think about some damselfly shots I took earlier this year with my zoom lens and an extension tube.

I only processed one at the time, as it was the only one I was halfway happy with. Anyway I went back to review my archive and found a couple of others that I thought might be OK. The detail on them is terrible. This is partly due to the natural light, subject movement (it was quite breezy that day), my lack of skills but I am mainly blaming my crappy lens. Even without the extension tube I've never really been happy with the image quality it gives me, but it is the longest lens I own. Anyway, here they are, I think they are all the same species as I understand there can be significant colour variation, particularly with the females but also teneral males:


Blue-tailed Damselfly by Tim.Garlick, on Flickr

Blue-tailed Damselfly by Tim.Garlick, on Flickr

Blue-tailed Damselfly by Tim.Garlick, on Flickr

Sadly this was about as close as I could get at the time. It was quite sunny (I was in the south of Spain) and although I did get up early to go looking for them, I didn't spot any until they started flying around. I did manage to get closer to one (sadly not close enough for a portrait) and managed to get a 5 image panorama along the body length which I finally got round to merging:

Panoramic Damselfly by Tim.Garlick, on Flickr

The full resolution file is pretty big, but there are some nice details and you can see all the problems with it here (Warning! It might take some time to load).

Just for completeness, this was the one I processed at the time that I was more happy with although I have posted it in this forum before:

Blue-tailed Damselfly (Infuscans form) by Tim.Garlick, on Flickr

Really hoping to get more opportunities to shoot these this year! There's plenty of room for improvement!

 

[Tintin124]

I'm on my phone so will have to come back but detail doesn't look to bad from here.

I personally think damsels and dragons look better under natural light. Generally around in those conditions so the blues that flash brings out loses it naturalness. Guessing these were with 55-250. You should have practiced your panning with them flying good fun but frustrating.

I'll be back when got the the proper computer on.

 

[LCPete]

Hi Tim I'm viewing on my phone too but do see what you mean they look nice but the details are not quite there
damselflies are a tricky subject tho I always struggle when its windy they seem to perch on grass stems that catch the wind
absolutely agree with Bryn about natural light and damselflies and dragonflies I've never been happy with flash shots of them
the light looks good in these tho

 

[ChrisA]

Do like that first one Tim. Not seen the white variation myself.

I prefer the larger insects eg damselflies, dragonflies and butterflies in natural light - always think they look better.

Windly/Breezy days can be a problem - you need to have some good light and wide aperture to help out. A tripod here can work if you lens reaches - as it takes one sway out of the equation. Must try using one with my 100mm, if I can carry it this spring again.

What is your crappy lens ? Can see some detail loss - wondering if it is the lens of movement blur on the big one?

 

[TimmyG]

I'm on my phone so will have to come back but detail doesn't look to bad from here.

I personally think damsels and dragons look better under natural light. Generally around in those conditions so the blues that flash brings out loses it naturalness. Guessing these were with 55-250. You should have practiced your panning with them flying good fun but frustrating.

I'll be back when got the the proper computer on.

Cheers Bryn. I totally agree, damsels look better in natural light but generally I think this is because you shoot them from further away, so you can't get your flash (and diffuser) close in, or alternatively you'll need a massive softbox which is probably not appropriate out in the field. I suspect a bit of fill flash might be beneficial on occasions, but I haven't mastered that technique, and certainly the best full body shots I have seen of damsels seem to be with natural light. I think in flight shots are next to impossible with this lens. Autofocus is quite slow, and I'm not quick enough for manual focusing!

Hi Tim I'm viewing on my phone too but do see what you mean they look nice but the details are not quite there
damselflies are a tricky subject tho I always struggle when its windy they seem to perch on grass stems that catch the wind
absolutely agree with Bryn about natural light and damselflies and dragonflies I've never been happy with flash shots of them
the light looks good in these tho

Thanks Pete. Yes why do they insist on landing at the top of the most precarious perches? Oh well, I suppose it lets you get good separation for the background...

Do like that first one Tim. Not seen the white variation myself.

I prefer the larger insects eg damselflies, dragonflies and butterflies in natural light - always think they look better.

Windly/Breezy days can be a problem - you need to have some good light and wide aperture to help out. A tripod here can work if you lens reaches - as it takes one sway out of the equation. Must try using one with my 100mm, if I can carry it this spring again.

What is your crappy lens ? Can see some detail loss - wondering if it is the lens of movement blur on the big one?

Thanks Chris! I'm blaming the lens here but it could equally have been my poor technique, and maybe the lighting was a bit harsh (it was Spain, not a cloud in the sky)! I was using my 55-250 EF-S (the original one, not the latest Mark III) which I have never really got on with. Looking at the EXIF I had pumped ISO up to 1600 which I almost never use on the 550D so I must have been struggling from the start. I also checked the EXIF on the big one (5 image pano) and realised I'd done that with the MP-E and flash, so I guess that explains to finer detail and dark background.

Think you are right about a tripod for natural light shooting. I probably don't realise how much camera shake I am getting as I usually shoot with flash, so might have a look for a cheap monopod or something this season. Of course I'd really love a 180mm macro lens for these types of shots, or even the 400 prime

 

[ChrisA]

A monopod is a nice idea - might see if I can find a cheap one too. Surprised that with bright sun you needed 1600 iso - but use what you need.

I am lucky enough to have the old 100mm macro lens for these things. Of course the 180 would be nicer for more distance. Have tried a 300mm - but never got on with it overly apart from in flight stuff. Probably lack of practice.

Not used the 55-250 - so not sure what that is like - worth ruling out the shake if you can.

 

[TimmyG]

Surprised that with bright sun you needed 1600 iso - but use what you need.

Ignore me I'm talking rubbish. Going back through the EXIF it's only the last one that has the high iso (the others were at a more reasonable ISO 200 or 400), and you can see there must have been very different lighting conditions. One of the perils of waiting months to process images is you forget what you were doing and why you did it! I assumed these were all taken on the same excursion but it seems I went on at least two, about 5 days apart!

Not used the 55-250 - so not sure what that is like - worth ruling out the shake if you can.

I think @GardenersHelper has the Mark III version which he says is quite good. I'm hoping I can find an alternative before the season starts this year...

 

[GardenersHelper]

I think @GardenersHelper has the Mark III version which he says is quite good. I'm hoping I can find an alternative before the season starts this year...

It's the 55-250 STM. I've read several times that it has optics approaching that of a first generation 70-200L in terms of image quality (but not in terms of focusing speed apparently, although it isn't slow, it is said to be no nearly as fast as an L lens), see various comments in this post for example. I have no way of knowing if the image quality claim is true (or the focusing speed claim for that matter).

 

[TimmyG]

Maybe it is worth me considering updating it then. However I might be tempted to go for the 50-200 for my EOS-M as an alternate. It'll be easier for travelling with, almost the same reach, I can still stick an extension tube on it and I imagine the optics would be equivalent.

Oh why do they give you so many OPTIONS!!!