Cricket, anyone?

[SmartWombat]

Only an old Casio QV2800UX, but I'd rather that than lose the shot

Maybe the uncropped photo on top can be improved, would you care to contribute your efforts?

In case you're wondering, at 640x480 on a 17" monitor she's about life size !
Mid-summer (July '03) time for egg-laying and she found the sand in between the paving blocks in the car park in front of the hotel in Germany.

[Spike]

Because I have the same one, and still use it. In fact, both my cameras are only 2mp. Perfect for web posting and email. The Casio has fantastic macro capabilities (for a p&s), doesn't it?

So, I like the 2nd shot much more than the first. The lighting in the first is too strong, too glaring. On camera flash? Looks like it was nighttime so you had to use some flash. I think it would have been better at a lower flash strength.

The composition of the 2nd shot is much nicer, imho. I like how the bug is looking at the camera, at an angle, with those big arching antenna. Again, the lighting is rather harsh, but not so bad.

Spike

Only an old Casio QV2800UX, but I'd rather that than lose the shot

Maybe the uncropped photo on top can be improved, would you care to contribute your efforts?

In case you're wondering, at 640x480 on a 17" monitor she's about life size !
Mid-summer (July '03) time for egg-laying and she found the sand in between the paving blocks in the car park in front of the hotel in Germany.

[frannymac]

I love the way in the second shot she seems to be saying 'oh come on now - can't a girl have SOME privacy...' hehe!

jokes aside - spike is right - the only thing I would comment on is the lighting - unfortunately I am relatively new to PS so can't give you any tips, but maybe I will have a play later - have to go to work now!

[SmartWombat]

Yeah as you suspected, on camera flash, the fall-off gives the nice black background for the antennae. But it doesn't cover the foreground when in macro mode. With a diffuser (I didn't even have a handkerchief) I think it would have been better.

That side-on angle reflected the light off the wing a lot, which prompted me to try that more head-on picture while still showing what she was up to

I thought #2 was the best of the shots I had, so I put some time into cropping it.
I know the left antenna goes out of focus, but I didn't want it straight head on because it would lose the ovipositor - the egg laying was what I wanted to capture.

I agree the 2800 was a fantastic camera, with macro almost down to the lens, and that twist body superb for low down work (I can't bend like I used to).
The 2800 gave up after being dropped for the third time
I dismantled it and re-soldered the power switch after the second drop, but it's terminal.

[Tuna]

If you have the capability of seeing and adjusting the histogram (levels), these photos definitely need it. Slide the left hand arrow to the right until it reaches the start of the hill.

If that is not an option, it appears that the flash is burning out the colors and highlights. Maybe there was enough ambient to have captured without? Or to have bounced the flash off a ceiling or wall?

Tuna

[SmartWombat]

>> Maybe there was enough ambient to have captured without?
It was around 11 at night - coming back from the restaurant.
She wasn't still enough to take a many second exposure just leaving the camera at ground level.
Otherwise I'd have tried that, using the 2 second timer to avoid any camera shake.
That's a good tip for anyone else trying to do this without a tripod.

>> Or to have bounced the flash off a ceiling or wall?
Good idea, unfortunately not possible in the car park!
She picked a spot too far away from neighbouring cars to get reflection off them either.
With the built-in flash directly above the lens I couldn't even bounce it off my white shirt (I've done that before with fill-flash!).

If I'd had an external flash, it would have been so much better.
But I hadn't thought of taking any kit to the restaurant, just the P&S in my pocket.

[Tuna]

>> Maybe there was enough ambient to have captured without?
It was around 11 at night - coming back from the restaurant.
She wasn't still enough to take a many second exposure just leaving the camera at ground level.
Otherwise I'd have tried that, using the 2 second timer to avoid any camera shake.
That's a good tip for anyone else trying to do this without a tripod.

>> Or to have bounced the flash off a ceiling or wall?
Good idea, unfortunately not possible in the car park!
She picked a spot too far away from neighbouring cars to get reflection off them either.
With the built-in flash directly above the lens I couldn't even bounce it off my white shirt (I've done that before with fill-flash!).

If I'd had an external flash, it would have been so much better.
But I hadn't thought of taking any kit to the restaurant, just the P&S in my pocket.

Ooops. Sorry. Should have realized that you were outdoors... Still, if it is an option for you, a levels adjustment might work wonders. Most basic photo manipulation programs have the option.

Regards,
Tuna

[Tuna]

I hope you don't mind...I've taken this liberty. If you do mind, please let me know and I will immediately delete.

After the levels correction, I realize that the antennae tends to disappear...

Tuna

[SmartWombat]

The problem with adjustment is that the insect was that light green colour.
The colour rendition of the photos is pretty good for such a cheap camera - though it didn't seem cheap when I bought it !

I think selective adjustment instead of overall might work better.
Just on the reflecting area of the wing.