Various creatures including a newish harvestman

[davholla]

A female Histricostoma argenteolunulatum, in the UK only found in one place and this year. The real size is 2.2 mm, magnification is 3.36
IMG_5400Harvestman by davholla2002, on Flickr

Pseudoscorpion possibly Roncus lubricus magnification 1.96 body 2mm long, claws about 1.53

PseudoscorpionIMG_5005-1 by davholla2002, on Flickr

Red spider mite, the real size is 2.41 mm, magnification is 3.36

IMG_4925SpiderMite by davholla2002, on Flickr

Ichumenon Wasp eating honey. The real size is 7.03 mm, magnification is 1.4.
My wife asked me to make Yorkshire pudding, but I photographed this instead and we didn't have them. I think it was worth the sacrifice

IMG_5094IchumenonWaspv2 by davholla2002, on Flickr


Spider, the real body size is 4.05 mm, magnification is 1.4

SpiderIMG_5001 by davholla2002, on Flickr

 

[Graham]

That`s a nice selection of Spiders there David.
Shame about the Yorkshire puds, I know where my loyalties lie.
PS, I think it`s been said before concerning your photos, there seems to be a Haze, seen especially in the 1st shot, any reason for it ?

 

[davholla]

That`s a nice selection of Spiders there David.
Shame about the Yorkshire puds, I know where my loyalties lie.
PS, I think it`s been said before concerning your photos, there seems to be a Haze, seen especially in the 1st shot, any reason for it ?

Well strictly speaking there is only 1 spider
I couldn't see that haze - but my son could and I can now.

I would guess it is because my flash bracket is a pain (why can't I just buy a flash for £200 or less that just works with the MPE65 without any messing around? It shouldn't be that difficult).
And I was trying to improve the exposure

Here is the original raw converted into jpeg for no processing
IMG_5400 by davholla2002, on Flickr


An alternative processing

IMG_5400Harvestmanv2 by davholla2002, on Flickr


Does anyone know how to improve the exposure without the haze @gardenerhelper any idea what settings?

 

[footman]

What's your flash setup now?

 

[GardenersHelper]

Does anyone know how to improve the exposure without the haze @gardenerhelper any idea what settings?

Hi David. Sorry for not responding sooner. I'm only just emerging from my heavy bout of backlog clearance, during which I've not been paying attention to anything much else.

If possible I would very much like to have a look at the raw file. If you are so inclined please upload it here at DropBox (and some others too if you want). My raw files often come out quite dark and flat looking. The darkness has to do with trying to expose to avoid blowing the highlights, especially for reflective subjects, which pushes the detail in darker areas out of sight, but it may still be there and perfectly well recoverable. I suspect the flatness comes from the wide dynamic range that the raw files can contain. So I'm thinking the issue may be more with processing than illumination. Or maybe not; that's why I'd like to play with the raw file if you are comfortable with that. No problem of course if not.

I'm impressed by how small some of the subjects are that you are photographing. I'll be trying to find some similar sized subjects over the next few weeks as there is nothing around of the (larger and easier) sizes I usually deal with, and I really want to keep testing my new setup.

 

[GardenersHelper]

(why can't I just buy a flash for £200 or less that just works with the MPE65 without any messing around? It shouldn't be that difficult).

Yongnuo 24EX twin flash? (currently £145 at Amazon uk, very similar to the Canon MT24EX). I have one, which I used for a while with my A7ii (flash in manual mode, it being a Canon mode flash). As it happens I am now using my Venus Optics KX800, transferred across from my bridge/m43 close-up lens setups. I don't know which one I'll end up using. I am still getting nasty bright reflections with shiny subjects, as I did with the Yongnuo, despite having tried lots of different diffusion arrangements with both flash units.

See here in my Journey thread, and the following post for the Yongnuo and my diffusion attempts. The reference to "milky/foggy" at the start of the second of those posts reminds me that, depending on the flash arrangement, you might be getting some flash light going directly into the lens and reducing contrast.

See here in my Journey thread for the current KX800 setup.

Even when twin flashes work well/easily, I'm still not keen on the twin reflections I get sometimes. They look unnatural to me. Single reflections would be more natural looking, but still ugly all the same. You can't have everything. For example the KX800 (at least the way I've got its diffusion rigged) gets in the way more than the Yongnuo fitted to the front of the lens. But with the Yongnuo I couldn't let the diffusers be too deep or they got too close to the subject when at maximum magnification, especially with the MPE-65 and its 40mm working distance at 5:1. And I couldn't get diffusion that I liked with small/thin diffusers.

JohnK at dpreview seems to have got it well sorted with the MPE-65, but even though I've tried to (somewhat) emulate what he is using I can't get anywhere close to what he is achieving. I don't understand it. I got fed up trying endless alternatives and now I'm just doing what I can in post processing. Sometimes it works, somewhat, and sometimes I just have to throw images out. It all seems very complicated and difficult to me. And frustrating

 

[davholla]

Hi David. Sorry for not responding sooner. I'm only just emerging from my heavy bout of backlog clearance, during which I've not been paying attention to anything much else.

If possible I would very much like to have a look at the raw file. If you are so inclined please upload it here at DropBox (and some others too if you want). My raw files often come out quite dark and flat looking. The darkness has to do with trying to expose to avoid blowing the highlights, especially for reflective subjects, which pushes the detail in darker areas out of sight, but it may still be there and perfectly well recoverable. I suspect the flatness comes from the wide dynamic range that the raw files can contain. So I'm thinking the issue may be more with processing than illumination. Or maybe not; that's why I'd like to play with the raw file if you are comfortable with that. No problem of course if not.

Thank you I have uploaded it both raw and the jpeg without editing.

I'm impressed by how small some of the subjects are that you are photographing. I'll be trying to find some similar sized subjects over the next few weeks as there is nothing around of the (larger and easier) sizes I usually deal with, and I really want to keep testing my new setup.

At this time of year I only find smaller creatures. I feel confident at photographing at down to 1.5 mm now.
If I lived in a tropical country I might ignore them.

 

[davholla]

Yongnuo 24EX twin flash? (currently £145 at Amazon uk, very similar to the Canon MT24EX).

I have it but what I would really like is a flash that I just buy and put on and it works. With my Yongnuo I bought it, bought diffusers - they were rubbish, bought some more but they get in the way so I stick the flash headers further back.
I have probably spent more on diffusers than the camera which took those photos is worth (not very difficult to be honest it is 12 years old).

 

[GardenersHelper]

Thank you I have uploaded it both raw and the jpeg without editing.

On the left is what I got putting the raw file through my normal workflow. On the right is the posted version got from Flickr and downsized to my normal output size of 1300 pixels high for the comparison.
(btw, I cloned out over 50 dust spots.)


NOT MY IMAGE - davholla Harvestman - Left GA from raw, Right downsized from slightly larger davholla Flickr version by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

At this time of year I only find smaller creatures. I feel confident at photographing at down to 1.5 mm now.

That is very small. I'm impressed.

If I lived in a tropical country I might ignore them.

I wouldn't like the heat, but I would certainly like the variety of subjects!

 

[davholla]

On the left is what I got putting the raw file through my normal workflow. On the right is the posted version got from Flickr and downsized to my normal output size of 1300 pixels high for the comparison.
(btw, I cloned out over 50 dust spots.)


NOT MY IMAGE - davholla Harvestman - Left GA from raw, Right downsized from slightly larger davholla Flickr version by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

That is an amazing edit. I think I am going to copy your workflow. Where is the link to it?

That is very small. I'm impressed.

Thank you

I wouldn't like the heat, but I would certainly like the variety of subjects!

I have some good news for there, in Colombia and many other tropical countries they have cloud forest - cool humid forests at high altitude no problems with temperature etc and full of creatures. As you have had health problems in the past you might need to take a few books and do nothing for a few days to acclimatise. (Saying that health and altitude sickness are not 100% linked)

 

[GardenersHelper]

That is an amazing edit. I think I am going to copy your workflow. Where is the link to it?

My workflow keeps changing. I don't have a detailed description of it. Currently, for invertebrates, it works like this (it is different for botanical subjects). This is an abridged version, referring to a single raw file. I can describe how this folds into a more rounded workflow when I'm dealing with a set of images sometimes comprising many hundreds of images.

• Use a preset on the raw file using DXO PhotoLab Elite and produce a TIFF file.
• Do image-specific adjustments in Lightroom Classic and output a 1300 pixel high JPEG.
• Use the legacy AI Clear method in Topaz DeNoise AI on the JPEG.

The PhotoLab preset does the following, all with relatively mild settings (adjusted for your shot as indicated):

• Enhances the microcontrast
• Reduces the highlights
• Applies DXO's Clearview Plus method
• Applies DXO's Smart Lighting method
• Applies a Color Rendering setting. This depends on the camera. For your image I used DXO's '40D Camera body' setting
• Applies the Protect saturated colors setting
• Sets a white balance. For my images I use (if I have it) a white balance based on a white balance calibration shot for the flash and diffusion arrangement I used for the shot. For your image .... I'm not sure what I used. I had loaded the preset I currently use for the A7ii and changed the Color Rendering setting for the 40D. That preset has Temp 5000, Tint 4, but I think I might have changed it to "As shot".
• Applies default settings for Chromatic aberrations and purple fringing
• Applies DXO's new Deep Prime noise reduction

In Lightroom I:

• Raised Blacks by the maximum available amount
• Raised Shadows about 3/4 of the way to the maximum amount
• Raised Whites about 1/2 of the way to the maximum amount
• Reduced Highlights about 1/2 of the way to the minimum amount

These sort of Lightroom adjustments are done on an image-specific basis (Lightroom provides some indicators which help with this) and may also include other changes, particularly to Exposure (not really exposure of course, you can't alter that, but the lightness of the image), Texture, Clarity and/or Dehaze. Occasionally I may change Contrast, Vibrance and/or Saturation. Sometimes I do local adjustments such as local adjustments to any of the previous (using a brush or using radial or graduated filters), I sometimes do simple cloning. For more difficult cloning a sometimes loop out to Photoshop, although that is mostly with flowers rather than invertebrates, as is also the case for the stretching/contracting of edges that I sometimes do for compositional reasons. Very occasionally I may make Hue/Saturation/Lightness adjustments and/or a white balance adjustment. I use Lightroom for cropping.

I quite often do a first "rough cut" run through and then go back to the Lightroom stage to fine tune, and repeat as necessary. Very, very occasionally I might go back to the initial DXO stage, or insert Silkypix between the DXO and Lightroom stages.

I have some good news for there, in Colombia and many other tropical countries they have cloud forest - cool humid forests at high altitude no problems with temperature etc and full of creatures. As you have had health problems in the past you might need to take a few books and do nothing for a few days to acclimatise. (Saying that health and altitude sickness are not 100% linked)

That's good to know. Thanks.

 

[davholla]

My workflow keeps changing. I don't have a detailed description of it. Currently, for invertebrates, it works like this (it is different for botanical subjects). This is an abridged version, referring to a single raw file. I can describe how this folds into a more rounded workflow when I'm dealing with a set of images sometimes comprising many hundreds of images.

• Use a preset on the raw file using DXO PhotoLab Elite and produce a TIFF file.
• Do image-specific adjustments in Lightroom Classic and output a 1300 pixel high JPEG.
• Use the legacy AI Clear method in Topaz DeNoise AI on the JPEG.

The PhotoLab preset does the following, all with relatively mild settings (adjusted for your shot as indicated):

• Enhances the microcontrast
• Reduces the highlights
• Applies DXO's Clearview Plus method
• Applies DXO's Smart Lighting method
• Applies a Color Rendering setting. This depends on the camera. For your image I used DXO's '40D Camera body' setting
• Applies the Protect saturated colors setting
• Sets a white balance. For my images I use (if I have it) a white balance based on a white balance calibration shot for the flash and diffusion arrangement I used for the shot. For your image .... I'm not sure what I used. I had loaded the preset I currently use for the A7ii and changed the Color Rendering setting for the 40D. That preset has Temp 5000, Tint 4, but I think I might have changed it to "As shot".
• Applies default settings for Chromatic aberrations and purple fringing
• Applies DXO's new Deep Prime noise reduction

In Lightroom I:

• Raised Blacks by the maximum available amount
• Raised Shadows about 3/4 of the way to the maximum amount
• Raised Whites about 1/2 of the way to the maximum amount
• Reduced Highlights about 1/2 of the way to the minimum amount

These sort of Lightroom adjustments are done on an image-specific basis (Lightroom provides some indicators which help with this) and may also include other changes, particularly to Exposure (not really exposure of course, you can't alter that, but the lightness of the image), Texture, Clarity and/or Dehaze. Occasionally I may change Contrast, Vibrance and/or Saturation. Sometimes I do local adjustments such as local adjustments to any of the previous (using a brush or using radial or graduated filters), I sometimes do simple cloning. For more difficult cloning a sometimes loop out to Photoshop, although that is mostly with flowers rather than invertebrates, as is also the case for the stretching/contracting of edges that I sometimes do for compositional reasons. Very occasionally I may make Hue/Saturation/Lightness adjustments and/or a white balance adjustment. I use Lightroom for cropping.

I quite often do a first "rough cut" run through and then go back to the Lightroom stage to fine tune, and repeat as necessary. Very, very occasionally I might go back to the initial DXO stage, or insert Silkypix between the DXO and Lightroom stages.



That's good to know. Thanks.

Thanks for that, is that a preset that comes with it or one you made?

How long does this take for an image?
I love photography but hate processing. If I were a millionaire I would pay someone to do it for me. I would pay for that before I pay for a cleaner!

 

[GardenersHelper]

Thanks for that, is that a preset that comes with it or one you made?

One I made.

I did say above that "my workflow keeps changing". Today I have another example of this. Yesterday someone told me something I didn't know about the new version of PhotoLab and I've changed my presets because of it (greatly simplifying them as it happens), and also changing to saving DNG rather than TIFF files from PhotoLab. It is a process of "continuous improvement". Well, that is what a PR firm would call it. It's actually more like "changing from time to time -sometimes a good idea, sometimes not so good".

How long does this take for an image?

Bear in mind that I have a rather powerful PC with a good graphics card that PhotoLab uses for some of its calculations (as do Lightroom and DeNoise AI).

The time taken for a PhotoLab preset depends on the number of pixels in the image. I just did some timings for 24 megapixel A7ii raw files, and using the processor-intensive (raw only) noise reduction method.

• 1 image, 17 seconds
• 3 images, 30 seconds
• 10 images, 74 seconds

I love photography but hate processing. If I were a millionaire I would pay someone to do it for me. I would pay for that before I pay for a cleaner!

I'm ok with photography, but love processing! No matter how much money I had I wouldn't want someone doing it for me.