The necessity (or not) of eye detail

[GardenersHelper]

I've been having some discussions recently about eye detail and it has left me curious. How necessary is eye detail for your enjoyment of an image?

You might want to base a response on your own experience, but for anyone who would like an example to respond to .....

..... this image doesn't have any eye detail. Would you throw it out because of that? (You might throw it out for other reasons, but it is the eye detail question that I'm primarily interested in here.)


1888 10 2021_05_12 DSC02428_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIcLoLo by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

if you look at the next image at 100% of its 1300 pixel high size you will see that it does have some eye detail, but it isn't very good quality. Would you throw it out because of that?


1888 12 2021_05_12 DSC02436_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIcLoLo by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I do have some thoughts about this issue, but I'll keep them for a response later. Just now I'm more interested in what you think.

 

[Norkie]

I do prefer ‘eye detail’, but both of these images are very good indeed. When I shoot insects I focus on the eye, but it is the overall impact of the image that is important.

 

[Paul Iddon]

I thin eye detail is very important - though it isn't always obvious in some edits.

Paul.

 

[Testudo Man]

Both images are great, but im drawn to any image that has eye/eyes in focus.
But wait, you wasnt asking that question (eye focus) were you Nick.
I think its all down to each image, if the content/context is good, then certain images will still appeal(even if eye detail is lacking).
For me, for the most part, getting eye detail is important for my images. If eye focus is missed, then most of those images would be deleted.
If im shooting Butterflies, an they have their wings spread, its quite hard to get much eye detail in the images, because im after good detail in wings/body/antennae etc.
If im shooting Reptiles/Odonata/Bugs, then im coming at this from a different angle, in which case, its all about the eyes first for me.

 

[Cobra]

Both great images Nick, personally, I don't mind either, but I certainly admire anyone that gets really close eye detail,
in their macro images, That something that I've not yet managed in any real detail.
But one day hopefully

 

[Son_of_Thor]

This is an interesting question Nick and for me I think it depends on what you're photographing and how close up. Most of the stuff I shoot is better described as close-up rather than true macro. I'm extremely critical of my own stuff and bin a lot. As others have said, I always focus on the eye(s) and anything where they aren't in focus is pretty much discarded straight away. In harsh light I often find the light diffracting off cells in insects eyes doesn't look pleasing to my eye and these tend to get discarded too. I've never got enough magnification and tend to find myself pondering how much to crop in when processing - I often capture good eye detail when viewing at 100%, but this doesn't tend to come across in the processed image a lot of the time. Unfortunately a lot of the detail I do capture is subsequently lost when outputting at lower resolution for sharing. I don't think this necessarily detract from the final image though, but as a bit of a pixel-peeper I find that it irks me.

FWIW, I wouldn't throw out either of the images you've posted, but then you're much better at this sort of stuff than I am

The top image doesn't really come across as 'missing' the eye detail, it's more of an environmental shot of the whole insect to me. Just the right depth of field to my eye but arguably starting to lose some very fine detail (maybe due to diffraction?) That is extreme nit-picking though - if it were mine it'd be very happy with it. With the 2nd shot I'd keep it as it a better level of eye details than I normally manage with smaller subjects - be interested to hear what sort of size the subject was and the level of magnification involved (probably fairly extreme I'd expect)!

 

[GardenersHelper]

I would like to thank everyone who has responded to my request. You have helped me sort out my thoughts and settle my feelings about this issue.


Your responses

I posed the same questions on three forums that I currently frequent which include close-up/macro in their subject matter. I am posting this response in all three forums.

I have received 16 responses, as follows:

• 6 in this thread at focalworld.com
• 5 in this thread at dpreview.com
• 5 in this thread at talkphotography.co.uk

Respondents varied in their experience with close-up/macro, ranging from experts through to non-practitioners.

Unsurprisingly, opinions differed, although not as much as I expected.

One respondent, who has a long history and deep competence with this sort of subject matter did not like either of the images (as explained in this post) for two reasons: lack of detail in the eyes and unappealing compositions.

For everyone else it seemed to be (with some variety of course) along the lines of "eye detail is very important, and one should strive to get it, but images can be appealing / worthwhile / enjoyable to look at even if they lack eye detail; it depends on what else is in the image, such as details of body/head/legs and composition".

This response included the following, which is a thought I will take away from this exercise and try to keep in mind: "The second image with the less than sharp compound eye detail draws attention to the fact that detail is less than sharp."

From this response, another thought I'll take away from this is along the lines of "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good".


My response

My questions arose from some responses to recent comments I have made about how the tiny aperture technique I'm currently using destroys fine detail. Lack of eye detail in insects seems to me to be where this is most apparent.

It isn't that this technique means that eye detail is impossible to capture, as I think these three examples from yesterday illustrate if you look at them at 100%.


1891 05 2021_05_15 DSC09972_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1891 15 2021_05_15 DSC00014_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr



1891 30 2021_05_15 DSC00072_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


But with this technique you have to get quite close in to capture eye detail. In each case, as shown below, there are examples from further out which lack eye detail. Especially for the second of these I would hope to see eye detail at this scale. For the third one, with the eyes being so small, I'm not surprised or particularly troubled about not being able to see eye detail. I'm not sure about the first one. I have a feeling bees' eye detail may be more difficult to pick up at this scale than flies' eye detail, but I'm not sure about that.

There are also intermediate examples where there is the beginnings of some eye detail but it looks poor quality. I think I'll be wary about posting that sort of image in future.

However, as a result of the responses I've received in this thread I'll be more relaxed about posting images like the ones below, with only a residual, slightly uneasy feeling that experts in this field may find them unsatisfactory. But it's the best I can manage at the moment, and that will have to do.

Once again, my sincere thanks for helping me with this.


1891 01 2021_05_15 DSC09946_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1891 13 2021_05_15 DSC00024_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr



1891 25 2021_05_15 DSC00059_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr




--
Nick
Summary of photo activity since 2007 https://fliesandflowers.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-i-retired-in-2006-i-had-it-in-mind.html
Flickr image collections http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/
Blog
https://fliesandflowersetc-ramblings.blogspot.com/

 

[ShinySideUp]

However, as a result of the responses I've received in this thread I'll be more relaxed about posting images like the ones below, with only a residual, slightly uneasy feeling that experts in this field may find them unsatisfactory. But it's the best I manage at the moment, and that will have to do.

Can't say I understand this question. Regarding the insect pictures above, if they contain the eye and the eye is important then obviously the eye should be in focus, detailed and sharp. If you are taking pictures to show aspects of, say, an insects wing, then whether or not the eye is in focus is irrelevant. The pictures look pretty good to me but if you think they are not good then your opinion of MY opinion will not be great.

If you are looking to impress experts in the field then you are making a rod for your own back and your motives for taking the picture in the first place perhaps should be examined. These people have done it for years, they have expensive equipment and are truly experienced. They will spend hours looking for the right subject, usually to some sort of professional brief. Look at the images that are published in magazines like National Geographic, if my pictures were half as decent I would die happy. I play chess, I am rubbish at it and I keep trying but no matter what I do I will never be a Grand Master. Some things have to be accepted as the best one can do. Personally, I accept things as good enough if it's half as good as my best because I am inherently lazy .

 

[GardenersHelper]

Can't say I understand this question. Regarding the insect pictures above, if they contain the eye and the eye is important then obviously the eye should be in focus, detailed and sharp. If you are taking pictures to show aspects of, say, an insects wing, then whether or not the eye is in focus is irrelevant. The pictures look pretty good to me but if you think they are not good then your opinion of MY opinion will not be great.

If you are looking to impress experts in the field then you are making a rod for your own back and your motives for taking the picture in the first place perhaps should be examined. These people have done it for years, they have expensive equipment and are truly experienced. They will spend hours looking for the right subject, usually to some sort of professional brief. Look at the images that are published in magazines like National Geographic, if my pictures were half as decent I would die happy. I play chess, I am rubbish at it and I keep trying but no matter what I do I will never be a Grand Master. Some things have to be accepted as the best one can do.

Quite so. As I wrote in my previous post, " as a result of the responses I've received in this thread I'll be more relaxed about posting images like the ones below [with no eye detail], with only a residual, slightly uneasy feeling that experts in this field may find them unsatisfactory. But it's the best I can manage at the moment, and that will have to do. "

 

[Cobra]

with only a residual, slightly uneasy feeling that experts in this field may find them unsatisfactory

Don't beat yourself up Nick, one man's meat and all that..

I've been following your work for sometime now, as you know.
You come a long way with your images, though hard work, dedication, trial and error, and plenty of research.
And to my mind all the above, theory and practice would certainly put someone in the expert category.

 

[THIRTYFIVEMILL]

If you're attempting to show an insect in its most captivating form then the eyes are the most important detail. As humans we read a lot from eyes and when we converse/communicate we watch each others eyes to glean emotions over and above those found in the spoken word. So when we look at insects and animals our eyes are naturally drawn to theirs as a main focal point. When you then consider that we can't see the details of the eyes of small bugs without macro magnification, then the eyes become all the more interesting when magnification is duly applied. So yes, composition and sharp, detailed eyes are what most people will find interesting and attractive in a still shot of a tiny creature.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Don't beat yourself up Nick, one man's meat and all that..

True.

I've been following your work for sometime now, as you know.
You come a long way with your images, though hard work, dedication, trial and error, and plenty of research.
And to my mind all the above, theory and practice would certainly put someone in the expert category.

Thanks Chris. I've certainly put a lot of effort into it, and I have slowly progressed over the years. Expert? Maybe somewhat on the practical side, in a handful of very narrow areas. On the theoretical side though, goodness me there are people who know a lot about this stuff. I see their erudite discussions (and yes, arguments too) - I can't follow any of it! (And do I care about that? Not really. )

 

[THIRTYFIVEMILL]

True.



Thanks Chris. I've certainly put a lot of effort into it, and I have slowly progressed over the years. Expert? Maybe somewhat on the practical side, in a handful of very narrow areas. On the theoretical side though, goodness me there are people who know a lot about this stuff. I see their erudite discussions (and yes, arguments too) - I can't follow any of it! (And do I care about that? Not really. )

LOL! Many scientific types have been drawn to macro for obvious reasons. They have a habit of debating for the sake of it and making stuff as complicated as possible, just because they can. It's good fun if you're in the mood but at other times sticking needles in one's own eyes can be a more enjoyable alternative.

 

[GardenersHelper]

If you're attempting to show an insect in its most captivating form then the eyes are the most important detail. As humans we read a lot from eyes and when we converse/communicate we watch each others eyes to glean emotions over and above those found in the spoken word. So when we look at insects and animals our eyes are naturally drawn to theirs as a main focal point. When you then consider that we can't see the details of the eyes of small bugs without macro magnification, then the eyes become all the more interesting when magnification is duly applied. So yes, composition and sharp, detailed eyes are what most people will find interesting and attractive in a still shot of a tiny creature.

Quite so. But would you always throw out images like the ones I posted on the grounds that they have no eye detail, no matter what else they might have, such as details of body, head, wings, legs, proboscis etc, or dealing with prey, blowing bubble or grooming, or on a journey through its own little world, an interesting pose, pleasing colours, shapes, textures? I'm trying to tease out whether people think eye detail is highly desirable, or absolutely necessary, in which case images that don't have it should be binned no matter what else they do or don't have.

 

[THIRTYFIVEMILL]

Quite so. But would you always throw out images like the ones I posted on the grounds that they have no eye detail, no matter what else they might have, such as details of body, head, wings, legs, proboscis etc, or dealing with prey, blowing bubble or grooming, or on a journey through its own little world, an interesting pose, pleasing colours, shapes, textures? I'm trying to tease out whether people think eye detail is highly desirable, or absolutely necessary, in which case images that don't have it should be binned no matter what else they do or don't have.

Nick, it depends what I'm after from the image. If I'm after a detailed shot of a Blue Bottle's buttocks then the eye detail is fairly irrelevant. TBH, out of 100 shots I probably keep 5-6 and that's if I'm not being too critical, otherwise one or two with be processed and the rest binned. The better you become the more selective you become, I think. That said, my expectation is that 1-3% of my macro images will be processed and kept and I'm happy with that ratio.

 

[GardenersHelper]

The top image doesn't really come across as 'missing' the eye detail, it's more of an environmental shot of the whole insect to me. Just the right depth of field to my eye but arguably starting to lose some very fine detail (maybe due to diffraction?)

Losing a huge amount of fine detail because of diffraction. That comes with the territory with the tiny apertures I've been using.

That is extreme nit-picking though - if it were mine it'd be very happy with it. With the 2nd shot I'd keep it as it a better level of eye details than I normally manage with smaller subjects - be interested to hear what sort of size the subject was and the level of magnification involved (probably fairly extreme I'd expect)!

To be honest, I don't keep track of how big the subjects are or what magnification I'm using. It wasn't one of the bigger flies, but it wasn't tiny either. Supposing for example it was 6mm long I would have used around 2:1 for the first shot and around 3:1 for the second, so not at all extreme in terms of magnification. And that may be somewhere around what the actual numbers were.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Nick, it depends what I'm after from the image. If I'm after a detailed shot of a Blue Bottle's buttocks then the eye detail is fairly irrelevant. TBH, out of 100 shots I probably keep 5-6 and that's if I'm not being too critical, otherwise one or two with be processed and the rest binned. The better you become the more selective you become, I think. That said, my expectation is that 1-3% of my macro images will be processed and kept and I'm happy with that ratio.

That's the sort of numbers I'm used to dealing with. What is surprising me about the current setup I'm using is that the numbers seem to have gone up significantly, even for subjects significantly smaller than I have typically dealt with in the past, such as springtails, barkflies and barkfly nymphs, individual aphids and some rather small spiders, including ones that are moving around a lot. Those were previously exceptions, with extremely high failure rates (which is why I didn't spend too much time on them). Now I'm getting on much better with them.

 

[THIRTYFIVEMILL]

That's the sort of numbers I'm used to dealing with. What is surprising me about the current setup I'm using is that the numbers seem to have gone up significantly, even for subjects significantly smaller than I have typically dealt with in the past, such as springtails, barkflies and barkfly nymphs, individual aphids and some rather small spiders, including ones that are moving around a lot. Those were previously exceptions, with extremely high failure rates (which is why I didn't spend too much time on them). Now I'm getting on much better with them.

I think my bin rate has stayed constant. As my technique improved so I became more critical and wanted more from the shots so ones I used to keep went straight in the bin. I think most do the same who strive for improvement.

 

[GardenersHelper]

I think my bin rate has stayed constant. As my technique improved so I became more critical and wanted more from the shots so ones I used to keep went straight in the bin. I think most do the same who strive for improvement.

My success rate has been rather variable from session to session over the past 10+ years, but averaging somewhere very roughly around the sort of figures you quoted. I can't be 100% sure, but I rather doubt the (obviously still variable but) increased success rate as soon as I started using this new rig stemmed from a simultaneous overnight decline in my acceptance criteria. With this kit, which required a big change in my operating technique, I'm getting more of what I want from my shots, and for significantly smaller subjects than previously, and for subjects that are moving more than I previously had success with. I'm seeing results that I've never seen before. I really don't think this is to do with me dropping my standards.

 

[THIRTYFIVEMILL]

My success rate has been rather variable from session to session over the past 10+ years, but averaging somewhere very roughly around the sort of figures you quoted. I can't be 100% sure, but I rather doubt the (obviously still variable but) increased success rate as soon as I started using this new rig stemmed from a simultaneous overnight decline in my acceptance criteria. With this kit, which required a big change in my operating technique, I'm getting more of what I want from my shots, and for significantly smaller subjects than previously, and for subjects that are moving more than I previously had success with. I'm seeing results that I've never seen before. I really don't think this is to do with me dropping my standards.

Could be my slow learning ability, too! Have you begun stacking yet?

 

[GardenersHelper]

Could be my slow learning ability, too! Have you begun stacking yet?

For invertebrates, no. I have done a very small number to test approaches, but it doesn't appeal to me as a technique I want to use in the field.

For flowers etc, yes, lots, for five years or so.

 

[THIRTYFIVEMILL]

For invertebrates, no. I have done a very small number to test approaches, but it doesn't appeal to me as a technique I want to use in the field.

For flowers etc, yes, lots, for five years or so.

Same here. A laborious process.

 

[davholla]

I think you should continue as you are - but keep trying to get better - but not to worry because your photos are really good.
If I were starting out I would pay you for a course (perhaps a business idea to supplement your pension but you would have to include a set up of cameras etc).

On the subject of eye details - this one of mine doesn't have any

SpiderIMG_6093 by davholla2002, on Flickr

This does
FlyIMG_8301 by davholla2002, on Flickr

I prefer second.

 

[GardenersHelper]

I think you should continue as you are - but keep trying to get better - but not to worry because your photos are really good.

Thanks David.

If I were starting out I would pay you for a course (perhaps a business idea to supplement your pension but you would have to include a set up of cameras etc).

I wouldn't want to get into any sort of business endeavour. Nothing as formal as a course. That said, I would happily spend time with anyone local who is into this sort of thing (I wouldn't travel). But to make sense I think it would have to include a least a little time with post processing, and as long as this Covid thing goes on we won't be inviting anyone into our house; my wife and I are both on the highly vulnerable list and we are being extremely cautious.

On the subject of eye details - this one of mine doesn't have any

SpiderIMG_6093 by davholla2002, on Flickr

This does
FlyIMG_8301 by davholla2002, on Flickr

I prefer second.

That is very interesting indeed. Despite the fact that like everyone else I think it is much better if you can get eye detail, I prefer the first of these two.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Same here. A laborious process.

For flowers it is very straightforward the way I do it. It is essentially point and shoot as far as the capture phase is concerned. I use video, so the capture rate is 30 frames per second. The fast capture rate means I can work hand-held, so there is no fiddling around with a tripod or anything else. There is nothing to set up beforehand. The capture is almost always done in less than 10 seconds, so I typically do several for each framing of each subject..

 

[davholla]

Thanks David.



I wouldn't want to get into any sort of business endeavour. Nothing as formal as a course. That said, I would happily spend time with anyone local who is into this sort of thing (I wouldn't travel). But to make sense I think it would have to include a least a little time with post processing, and as long as this Covid thing goes on we won't be inviting anyone into our house; my wife and I are both on the highly vulnerable list and we are being extremely cautious.

Haven't you both been vaccinated yet?

That is very interesting indeed. Despite the fact that like everyone else I think it is much better if you can get eye detail, I prefer the first of these two.

I think eye detail is normally better - but action or rarity are even better
This photo is probably better
Fly IMG_0985 by davholla2002, on Flickr

Than this
FlyIMG_0676 by davholla2002, on Flickr

But I prefer the second because it is one of only two photos of this species from Kent

 

[GardenersHelper]

Haven't you both been vaccinated yet?

Yes, both of us. But, although we now are looking at a low probability event, it is still potentially high impact, especially for my wife. And we are both pretty conservative when it comes to risk management.

I think eye detail is normally better - but action or rarity are even better
This photo is probably better
Fly IMG_0985 by davholla2002, on Flickr

Than this
FlyIMG_0676 by davholla2002, on Flickr

But I prefer the second because it is one of only two photos of this species from Kent

Action and rarity. Yes, that is very much how I see it.

 

[Son_of_Thor]

Losing a huge amount of fine detail because of diffraction. That comes with the territory with the tiny apertures I've been using.



To be honest, I don't keep track of how big the subjects are or what magnification I'm using. It wasn't one of the bigger flies, but it wasn't tiny either. Supposing for example it was 6mm long I would have used around 2:1 for the first shot and around 3:1 for the second, so not at all extreme in terms of magnification. And that may be somewhere around what the actual numbers were.

Which makes what you achieve all the more impressive Nick. I struggle to get that much detail on subject at least double that size

 

[Son_of_Thor]

I would like to thank everyone who has responded to my request. You have helped me sort out my thoughts and settle my feelings about this issue.


Your responses

I posed the same questions on three forums that I currently frequent which include close-up/macro in their subject matter. I am posting this response in all three forums.

I have received 16 responses, as follows:

• 6 in this thread at focalworld.com
• 5 in this thread at dpreview.com
• 5 in this thread at talkphotography.co.uk

Respondents varied in their experience with close-up/macro, ranging from experts through to non-practitioners.

Unsurprisingly, opinions differed, although not as much as I expected.

One respondent, who has a long history and deep competence with this sort of subject matter did not like either of the images (as explained in this post) for two reasons: lack of detail in the eyes and unappealing compositions.

For everyone else it seemed to be (with some variety of course) along the lines of "eye detail is very important, and one should strive to get it, but images can be appealing / worthwhile / enjoyable to look at even if they lack eye detail; it depends on what else is in the image, such as details of body/head/legs and composition".

This response included the following, which is a thought I will take away from this exercise and try to keep in mind: "The second image with the less than sharp compound eye detail draws attention to the fact that detail is less than sharp."

From this response, another thought I'll take away from this is along the lines of "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good".


My response

My questions arose from some responses to recent comments I have made about how the tiny aperture technique I'm currently using destroys fine detail. Lack of eye detail in insects seems to me to be where this is most apparent.

It isn't that this technique means that eye detail is impossible to capture, as I think these three examples from yesterday illustrate if you look at them at 100%.


1891 05 2021_05_15 DSC09972_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1891 15 2021_05_15 DSC00014_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr



1891 30 2021_05_15 DSC00072_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


But with this technique you have to get quite close in to capture eye detail. In each case, as shown below, there are examples from further out which lack eye detail. Especially for the second of these I would hope to see eye detail at this scale. For the third one, with the eyes being so small, I'm not surprised or particularly troubled about not being able to see eye detail. I'm not sure about the first one. I have a feeling bees' eye detail may be more difficult to pick up at this scale than flies' eye detail, but I'm not sure about that.

There are also intermediate examples where there is the beginnings of some eye detail but it looks poor quality. I think I'll be wary about posting that sort of image in future.

However, as a result of the responses I've received in this thread I'll be more relaxed about posting images like the ones below, with only a residual, slightly uneasy feeling that experts in this field may find them unsatisfactory. But it's the best I can manage at the moment, and that will have to do.

Once again, my sincere thanks for helping me with this.


1891 01 2021_05_15 DSC09946_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1891 13 2021_05_15 DSC00024_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr



1891 25 2021_05_15 DSC00059_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr




--
Nick
Summary of photo activity since 2007 https://fliesandflowers.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-i-retired-in-2006-i-had-it-in-mind.html
Flickr image collections http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/
Blog
https://fliesandflowersetc-ramblings.blogspot.com/

Very impressive as ever Nick, both technically and aesthetically. There's a pun here somewhere about getting shots this good requiring a good 'eye'

 

[GardenersHelper]

Which makes what you achieve all the more impressive Nick. I struggle to get that much detail on subject at least double that size

Very impressive as ever Nick, both technically and aesthetically. There's a pun here somewhere about getting shots this good requiring a good 'eye'

Thanks Si.

 

[LCPete]

Very interesting discussion everyone
It’s one of those things that I find so easy to miss , getting eye focus but I do think it’s important as the eye is the focal point in insects macro , I think so anyway
When I go through my pictures when I get home the first thing I look for is nice compositions
Then pick out ones that have eye details
I’m not so worried if parts of the insect are out of focus but the eyes need to be sharp
I seem to struggle with butterflies sometimes especially , getting the wings nice and sharp but the eye out of focus

 

[LCPete]

You seem to be getting nice eye details Nick and as usual excellent shots the bee is wonderful amazing details and perfect composition

 

[GardenersHelper]

You seem to be getting nice eye details Nick and as usual excellent shots the bee is wonderful amazing details and perfect composition

Thanks Pete.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Very interesting discussion everyone
It’s one of those things that I find so easy to miss , getting eye focus but I do think it’s important as the eye is the focal point in insects macro , I think so anyway

Thinking about this Pete you have made me realise that I should have been clearer in the top post and distinguished between the eye being in focus and the eye showing detail. I always want the eye to be in focus, but even when in focus the eye may not show detail. For some species, like globular springtails for example, the main eye components are few in number and relatively large. If the eye is in focus I would expect to be able to make them out even when the eye is fairly small in the frame like this.


1865 002 1824 21 2020_11_08 DSC09794_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAIcAutoMed by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

At the other end of the spectrum flies, bees and wasps have a large number of rather small micro-lenses and I only see them in my photos if I am quite close in.

This is about as far out as I can get eye detail with my current tiny apertures that lose fine detail......


1885 04 2021_05_06 DSC01324_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAIauto DNAIcLoLo by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

..... and closer-in is better


1885 06 2021_05_06 DSC01327_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAIauto DNAIcLoLo by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Other animals are somewhere between these extremes, such as weevils and ants.


1885 12 2021_05_06 DSC01343_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAIauto DNAIcLoLo by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1886 49 2021_05_11 DSC02361_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I should have set this out, and then asked something like "What about images that are too far out to be able to make out any eye detail even though the eyes are in focus - would you throw them out on the grounds of not being able to see any eye detail".

Loose thinking on my part. My apologies to everyone. Interesting feedback despite that, so thanks again Pete and everyone else who has commented.

When I go through my pictures when I get home the first thing I look for is nice compositions
Then pick out ones that have eye details

Interesting. I do my first longlist trawl based on eye/head focus and deal with composition further down the line. I compose by cropping most of the time, rarely using an image uncropped.

I’m not so worried if parts of the insect are out of focus but the eyes need to be sharp
I seem to struggle with butterflies sometimes especially , getting the wings nice and sharp but the eye out of focus

Yes, that can be tricky depending on the angle of view and how wide the wings are being held apart. In the days when I photographed the occasional butterfly (I don't think I've photographed one for several years now) I would often have to compromise on wing detail for one of the wings, which I didn't much like doing because butterfly wing detail is so attractive.

 

[LCPete]

Thinking about this Pete you have made me realise that I should have been clearer in the top post and distinguished between the eye being in focus and the eye showing detail. I always want the eye to be in focus, but even when in focus the eye may not show detail. For some species, like globular springtails for example, the main eye components are few in number and relatively large. If the eye is in focus I would expect to be able to make them out even when the eye is fairly small in the frame like this.


1865 002 1824 21 2020_11_08 DSC09794_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAIcAutoMed by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

At the other end of the spectrum flies, bees and wasps have a large number of rather small micro-lenses and I only see them in my photos if I am quite close in.

This is about as far out as I can get eye detail with my current tiny apertures that lose fine detail......


1885 04 2021_05_06 DSC01324_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAIauto DNAIcLoLo by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

..... and closer-in is better


1885 06 2021_05_06 DSC01327_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAIauto DNAIcLoLo by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Other animals are somewhere between these extremes, such as weevils and ants.


1885 12 2021_05_06 DSC01343_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAIauto DNAIcLoLo by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1886 49 2021_05_11 DSC02361_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I should have set this out, and then asked something like "What about images that are too far out to be able to make out any eye detail even though the eyes are in focus - would you throw them out on the grounds of not being able to see any eye detail".

Loose thinking on my part. My apologies to everyone. Interesting feedback despite that, so thanks again Pete and everyone else who has commented.



Interesting. I do my first longlist trawl based on eye/head focus and deal with composition further down the line. I compose by cropping most of the time, rarely using an image uncropped.



Yes, that can be tricky depending on the angle of view and how wide the wings are being held apart. In the days when I photographed the occasional butterfly (I don't think I've photographed one for several years now) I would often have to compromise on wing detail for one of the wings, which I didn't much like doing because butterfly wing detail is so attractive.

Ahh yes I see what you mean
I think it depends on the subject and angle , with a shot like your bee I believe the eye has to have details as that’s the main focus compared to something like a side on shot of a butterfly where the wings are the main focus
As long as the eyes are reasonably sharp on a butterfly I’m happy but something like a bee or damselfly portrait the eyes have to be sharp

I often need to focus stack as I shoot at wider apertures but always do the first shots with eye and body focus just in case the insect flies off

 

[GardenersHelper]

Ahh yes I see what you mean
I think it depends on the subject and angle , with a shot like your bee I believe the eye has to have details as that’s the main focus compared to something like a side on shot of a butterfly where the wings are the main focus
As long as the eyes are reasonably sharp on a butterfly I’m happy but something like a bee or damselfly portrait the eyes have to be sharp

That makes perfect sense to me.

I often need to focus stack as I shoot at wider apertures but always do the first shots with eye and body focus just in case the insect flies off

Very wise. What I think of as "safety shots". I do that before I start mucking about with zooming in and out or any other variations.