More Dragons. 2nd time photographing these lovely little creatures (Few more added)

IanClark

IanClark

Messages
3,616
Edit My Images
No
Headed out to some nature reserves with another macro-tog from a different forum (the guy that shoots hand held with an MPE-65 - Witnessed :))

Here are 4 of the images I took (there are more I have to process) (Click the yellow bar for the 1024px sharper shot)

Dragon Portrait - This is a crop of course. Slightly off centre but I'm still very pleased.

IMG5685.jpg


IMG5680.jpg


This is a natural light shot. Had to open up to F5, ISO 400 to get a decent shutter speed (of which I got a 1/125th) for handheld.

IMG5645.jpg


Phil's Finger! He was photographing it at the same time :D Natural light again, 1/200th this time.

IMG5653.jpg

 
Last edited:
even more pleasing is that you might just have got a female ruddy darter,not the easiest species to find
 
Thank you all, really appreciate the comments :)

Nick, no IS at all on the Sigma, would be a lovely addition to it though. I have to say this is the first time I've really succeeded in getting any natural light shots that have worked. I had plenty of time to think about them. As I was photographing a larger subject with a wide open space background, I knew that given the correct distance away, I could easily get away with a wider aperture. Combining it with what I believe to be the maximum workable ISO the EOS 400D can be set to (anything above 400 is too noisy), I could get the shutter speed to well within an acceptable speed to avoid motion blur. For sure, had I gone for the same kind of mag as the portrait, the light intake would have been a lot less therefore would have meant an unworkable shutter speed. I think the F5 helped to reduce the ISO noise too.

Azure, I am using a Canon 430 EX II Speedlite flash diffused by a lastolite ezy-box speedlite diffuser (for those with flash). :)
 
Last edited:
skyblue said:
even more pleasing is that you might just have got a female ruddy darter,not the easiest species to find
Click to expand...

Interesting. :) Be very nice if indeed it was. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the various species.

What I do know is that there were a very large amount of these little dragons about, not necessarily the same as this one (and even more spiders.. eek :))
 
Those are outstanding!

Looking at the exif of the first I see they were taken around midday but flash fired, do you mind sharing your setup as I was out taking dragins but these beet mine into (and back out of!) a cocked hat :D
 
lol, sorry I was posting at the same time :)

Still, how did you have your flash setup - hand held, on a bracket.

I'm actually looking up how much one of these lenses is.
 
Last edited:
JohnN said:
Those are outstanding!

Looking at the exif of the first I see they were taken around midday but flash fired, do you mind sharing your setup as I was out taking dragins but these beet mine into (and back out of!) a cocked hat :D
Click to expand...


Hi John (Thank you), I use flash in the vast majority of my Macros. For the most part, the diffuser shades subjects from harsh sunlight if there is some and in more subdued conditions, provides the required illumination I need.

This afternoon was particularly flat with regards to light so I used fill in flash to ensure I got the shots. That said, there was a brief moment where the light changed and was a lovely window for the natural light shots you see here too.

My set up is my EOS 400D, Sigma 105 EX DG Macro lens combined with (today), a 20mm ext. tube. Flash is the Speedlite 430EXII diffused with a softbox mentioned above.


EDIT: my diffuser is a bit mad.... but it works :) The image here is showing 3 tubes on with the Sigma but that was for a real up close shot of the stamen in the flowers.

1241157751_RfuRy-M.jpg
 
Last edited:
IanClark said:
Interesting. :) Be very nice if indeed it was. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the various species.

What I do know is that there were a very large amount of these little dragons about, not necessarily the same as this one (and even more spiders.. eek :))
Click to expand...

if there was alot i'd say that most were common darters,there are a few subtle differences though,the one i look for is that commons have a white strip down the legs,where ruddy's have pure black legs,and i see no white stripe(y)
 
IanClark said:
As I was photographing a larger subject with a wide open space background, I knew that given the correct distance away, I could easily get away with a wider aperture.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. Thanks.

I have started experimenting a bit with more than minimum aperture (as will probably be evident when I post from the session I'm currently processing) but I think I'll need much more practice before I get a decent feel for the effects. I'm a bit of a slow learner unfortunately. What you got there with f/5 is very instructive indeed.
 
Thank you Ian, its the 20mm tube that got the close up, that makes more sense than a 5mm increase, also the flash setup is great.

I'm hoping to get out tomorrow and will be packing my (somewhat smaller ;)) difuser the second I finish writing this.

EDIT: Difuser packed
 
Last edited:
skyblue said:
even more pleasing is that you might just have got a female ruddy darter,not the easiest species to find
Click to expand...
I think its a female black - but I'm no expert.

Very nice images of the darter. The 1st crop is great. The 3rd is superb with that nice natural light background.

Pushing the iso is definitely doable on more modern cameras eg 30D + without any real noticable noise. I tent to use 400 for handheld natural on the 100mm.

The second is really nice - and you have a made but obviously working flash diffusion setup, I had to double check the second was not NL.

If to really nit pic in the second either 5.6 or 6.3 would really of totally nailed the head ( eye to right is slightly oof). But having said that I'd be really proud of it.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your comments Chris. I'm certainly proud of these ones. :)
 
Here are another selection of shots. They seem to have suffered somwhat with some excess black areas which I think have impacted the quality somewhat. That said, I'm still pleased with them.

This is the flash used version of the first natural light shot in my first post. I have to admit, I prefer the natural light one :)

IMG5647.jpg


Background on this isn't as nice as I would like
IMG5662.jpg


A little closer on the side profile
IMG5652.jpg


Think she was warming up a little as she didn't fly away
IMG5664.jpg


Not a Dragon, but in the location, there were hundred of spiders. I noticed this one shoot out and grab the fly that got caught in the web. took a quick snapshot really.
IMG5677.jpg
 
IanClark said:
Here are another selection of shots. They seem to have suffered somwhat with some excess black areas which I think have impacted the quality somewhat. That said, I'm still pleased with them.
Click to expand...

Quite right too. More goodness for us to ogle. All very good, again.

IanClark said:
This is the flash used version of the first natural light shot in my first post. I have to admit, I prefer the natural light one :)
Click to expand...
What an intriguing comment. To me this one looks sharper with wider DOF. It has more information - just look at the hairs on the abdomen and the thorax in this version (did I get the body parts right?). More deeply saturated colours. Higher contrast. Higher micro-contrast. Punchy. High impact.

And yet, and yet ...

You know which way my preferences lean, so no point going there just now. But I would be fascinated to hear any thoughts you have on the comparison, and how they play into your preference.

This is such a clear comparison - exactly "the same shot" as it were, but so different. It makes me very curious as to how others feel about the one or the other.


IanClark said:
Not a Dragon, but in the location, there were hundred of spiders. I noticed this one shoot out and grab the fly that got caught in the web. took a quick snapshot really.
Click to expand...

Hehe. That's some snapshot!
 
hehe, cheers Nick.

Ya know, with the "flash" version of that natural light shot yes there is lots of micro detail there and I certainly like the shot and the detail captured but with that natural light shot, the light was so lovely at the time. I think most definitely there will be some that prefer the NL version as opposed to the flash version and vice versa. I think also because I'd captured a decent image in NL, I'm swayed more towards it (NL) :D.

With regards to the spider, really, I walked up, focused and took a quick shot. Then, I jumped back because I noticed the same species of spider making its way up my jacket and that, I was rather uncomfortable with much to the amusement of Phil whom I was with. I think the word he used was "wuss" when i jumped about to try and shake it off hahaha :D
 
IanClark said:
Ya know, with the "flash" version of that natural light shot yes there is lots of micro detail there and I certainly like the shot and the detail captured but with that natural light shot, the light was so lovely at the time.
Click to expand...

(y)

IanClark said:
I think also because I'd captured a decent image in NL, I'm swayed more towards it (NL) :D.
Click to expand...

I get the same thing I think, but the other way round, when flash works for me.

IanClark said:
With regards to the spider, really, I walked up, focused and took a quick shot. Then, I jumped back because I noticed the same species of spider making its way up my jacket and that, I was rather uncomfortable with much to the amusement of Phil whom I was with. I think the word he used was "wuss" when i jumped about to try and shake it off hahaha :D
Click to expand...

LOL. I think there must be two distinct sorts of wiring regarding spiders and the like.
 
Much prefer your NL one to the flash. The colours are just great in that light.

Not sure what you are seeing in the background you don't like. Looks all flashed out black to me, apart from the wings - I'd prefer the nice green as before mind. Nice detail.
 
I think it's my screen Chris. There isn't any kind of fault but it seems that it's rather sensetive to some ranges. When I view an image via regular Windows image viewer or Photoshop, all the gradients seem smooth even on JPEG's however as soon as I upload them to the likes of Smugmug, Flickr, Deviantart and view via those galleries or via forums they tend to look a big blocky in the darker areas. It's weird because it seems it's just my screen. They look fine on the panel I use in work and on my iphone.

Monitor is a 22" Samsung 226BW. I think I want to save up for one of these - http://www.amazon.co.uk/EIZO-ColorE...JDX6/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1316517620&sr=8-3

I believe they're one of the best monitors for photography.

With regards to your comments. Cheers mate. The NL ones are lovely I have to admit :)
 
IanClark said:
I think it's my screen Chris. There isn't any kind of fault but it seems that it's rather sensetive to some ranges. When I view an image via regular Windows image viewer or Photoshop, all the gradients seem smooth even on JPEG's however as soon as I upload them to the likes of Smugmug, Flickr, Deviantart and view via those galleries or via forums they tend to look a big blocky in the darker areas. It's weird because it seems it's just my screen. They look fine on the panel I use in work and on my iphone
Click to expand...

I had something possibly similar - smooth gradients in backgrounds came out with "contour lines" between areas of different brightness/saturation or whatever its called. It looked like posterisation. The Lagom gradient (banding) test showed banding. I dimly recall it possibly only happened in some apps, and/or possibly not at flickr, but I'm very uncertain about that.

Probably not relevant to your setup, but just in case ... I had set up my PC and XBox quite a long way from the screen and had the XBox using a long VGA connection and the PC using a long (but within spec for the resolution) DVI connection. I tried upgrading drivers etc on the PC, but the banding remained. Eventually I switched to using the VGA connection for both boxes and physically changing the source connector when I wanted to switch between them. (Haven't used the XBox since the Spring, but with Skyrim coming out soon, and the dark months coming up, I expect that will change!)

These PCs are so complicated and can be so quirky!?*
 
IanClark said:
Monitor is a 22" Samsung 226BW. I think I want to save up for one of these - http://www.amazon.co.uk/EIZO-ColorE...JDX6/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1316517620&sr=8-3

I believe they're one of the best monitors for photography.
Click to expand...

It should be at that price!

I have a Samsung at home. Is your monitor calibrated ? Possibly the cause ? Possibly also compression in web image ? Looking at work - so non-calibrated and can't see the blocks. Will check later to see...

I bought a Huey thingy for mine - makes a quick job of sorting the colours out etc.
 
Yeah I guess it does look like some posterisation. Only seems to occur when the image is uploaded.

Chris, not calibrated using specialised kits but calibrated using a standard grey > black thing I have in my bookmarks. It's possibly down to compression in the web image too. Problem occurs in FF, Chrome and IE.
 
IanClark said:
Yeah I guess it does look like some posterisation. Only seems to occur when the image is uploaded.

Chris, not calibrated using specialised kits but calibrated using a standard grey > black thing I have in my bookmarks. It's possibly down to compression in the web image too. Problem occurs in FF, Chrome and IE.
Click to expand...

Sounds like it probably isn't a calibration issue, but out of interest have you seen QuickGamma? It is a permanent fixture on my system now.

This is a simple thing that you can use for colour as well as black and white - http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/2point2.htm. btw I have never managed to get rid of the colours completely, but quite close (depending on the precise angle (up/down) I am looking at the screen from.)

I used this before I found QuickGamma. I now use it along with the Lagom stuff and some other stuff to convince myself from time to time that the gamma still checks out ok.
 
Not seen quickgamma. Will give it a whirl.
Cheers
 
Cheers King :)
 
Ian - on my calibrated Samsung I now see the background stuff you mentioned. I suspect your monitor is not showing down to calibration now.

However - I have also taken the liberty of having a quick place a smoothing the bg out - via running Topaz Denoise (PS plugin - try for free from their site if you have PS). I find this helps with flash shots, which sometimes pick up this noise in background. I tried uploading here - but image size seemed to big (odd - unless your images are stored elsewhere).

Hence I uploaded temp to my server - hope you don't mind. I will delete it in a week - or sooner if you object.

It's obviously not as good as you'd get if you had the larger file (essentially the blocks have become more compact on the small size) - but I hope you can see it looking a bit better.

IMG5662.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hi Chris, I don't mind your having an edit. Thing is, your edit looks worse than mine when viewed hehe. I've taken a couple of screenshots of the images as viewed in my browser (see below). What I am seeing in mine is smallish blocky artifcats where as yours is showing some bolder larger blocky artifacts.

As mentioned, when I view my images via CS3 (and CS5) or Windows Image viewer, they're lovely and smooth.

With regards to noise reduction. All the images posted have had some applied to a certain degree. Amusingly, I use Imagenomic Portraiture. Although designed to make ugly faces more pretty, it also works very nicely as a noise reducer.

I tried uploading a file that was completely unedited, converted from RAW direct to JPEG and I still saw some pixellation as such. I host my images at Smugmug and DeviantArt which makes me wonder what they are doing to images. I know Smug definitely apply some processing. DevArt doesn't seem to show stuff as bad but it's still apparent.

It's only a small selection of my images. Just the ones that seem to have more intense darker areas which quickly gradient up to lighter areas.

Here are the two screenshots. Hopefully I can replicate what I am seeing with these. If not, download them to your desktop. You "should" be able to see what I'm seeing :)

My Image - Smaller blocks appearing more speckled
i-swnG4wf.jpg



Your Image - appearing to show larger blocking
i-dQQp9qX.jpg
 
Hi Ian

Yes - I realised that it blocked it up. Only had a small file size to work with. I was trying to remove the speckling. I'd of hoped it would work better with the original.

If you've already cleaned it up (nice choice of tool! - had not heard of that one), then maybe it is the upload that's adding it back in.

Another thing I woud try with this is probably adding in some more blacks in RAW (possibly selectively if you have the patience in PP), to reduce the this background noice flash effect.
 
IanClark said:
Hi Chris, I don't mind your having an edit. Thing is, your edit looks worse than mine when viewed hehe. I've taken a couple of screenshots of the images as viewed in my browser (see below). What I am seeing in mine is smallish blocky artifcats where as yours is showing some bolder larger blocky artifacts.

.....

Here are the two screenshots. Hopefully I can replicate what I am seeing with these. If not, download them to your desktop. You "should" be able to see what I'm seeing :)
Click to expand...

EDIT: Ah, crossed posts with Chris. Never mind, perhaps there is something of interest in this anyway.

I just looked at your two screenshots in Faststone and couldn't see what you were talking about, even when I pulled the curtain over the glass door on one side of me and pulled the translucent blind down on the Velux behind me (It was sunny at that point - that didn't last long!).

But, your images were quite small on the (1920 x 1080) screen, with a big white surround. I changed the surround to black. Then I saw what you were talking about, very clearly. Very instructive.

In Chris' version I see a pretty clear "posterisation" line, and what I see seems to match the outside of this area, for which I used PS Magic Wand Tool, set to Contiguous with zero tolerance, and having made the selection switched Quick Mask on (I'm assuming from the context that it's ok to post these, if not obviously I'll take them down):


NOT MY IMAGE - IanClark - Dragonfly crop - ChrisA version - posterisation area1 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

There was another line (a bit lower contrast) around this area:


NOT MY IMAGE - IanClark - Dragonfly crop - ChrisA version - posterisation area2 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

With your version, these areas look more finely "speckled", and the pattern that the Magic Wand Tool picks up varies depending on exactly where you click it. (This contrasts with Chris' version, where I repeatedly get those same two patterns even when moving the Tool around slightly. Not all the time, there are some other patterns, but for the most part it is the two patterns shown.)

Here are two of the patterns I picked up from your version with the Magic Wand Tool. Consistent with what I and you are seeing, and the greater variety of patterns, it seems to have a finer microstructure than in Chris' versions.


NOT MY IMAGE - IanClark - Dragonfly crop - IanClark version - posterisation area1 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


NOT MY IMAGE - IanClark - Dragonfly crop - IanClark version - posterisation area2 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Another thought. When you are looking at the images that are on your PC (as against those that have been uploaded), what format are the files? Are they perhaps 16-bit (or even 32 bit perhaps), which can render gradients with more subtlety than (8-bit) JPEGs?

Another another thought. I wonder what happens when you try the technique I used above, but on the images you are viewing that don't exhibit the problem?
 
Last edited:
Hi Chris, yes Portraiture is a rather nice tool Great for noise reduction but also for portraits too. I suppose if the images didn't print out showing posterisation of any sorts then I'd be content. If I were ever lucky enough to get one in print on a web site or magazine, I'd be sending he full res TIFF anyway no doubt :).

Might give it a go adding in blacks though for forums, I guess it's not overly critical, Just a bit frustrating to see them Perhaps my monitor is significantly more sensetive as the problem doesn't appear to be that apparent on other peoples screens.


Nick, no problem at all in doing those examples above. In fact, they've been rather intriguing but helpful to know that you can now see what I am seeing.

The problem is definitely not there on a full resolution 16bit TIFF file and not even there on a 1024px wide 8bit JPEG file when viewed directly on the PC. Think I'll try your tests on the full res tiff and a 1024px jpeg directly on the computer that hasn't been uploaded.

I think I'm going to upload a 3888px wide jpeg copy of the image to a non-public part of my gallery to see what happens. That and a 1024px wide TIFF. My upload is 3Mbit so a 60Mb TIFF file would be up in no time but it's the time that the gallery takes to display such a large file that would be the problem. Be interesting to see if the same problem is exhibited on the larger Jpeg and/or Tiff. Even a PNG maybe.
 
Last edited:
A 3888px wide Jpeg still showed some degradation. I suspect this is JPEG compression more so now. Couldn't upload a 3888px wide PNG as file size was still too large. Gallery doesn't take TIFF files however I uploaded a 1024px Wide PNG. (the image is about 3Mb). There's still some compression but it's not as bad. Again, these images are very smooth directly on the PC. Odd. Maybe it's the way browsers render images.

i-7KXGGKj.png
 
Last edited:
Thanks Chris and Nick for your help and advice. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top