Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

FM Forum Rules
Macro World Resource
  

FM Forums | Macro & Still Life | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · Aeshna cyanea The Blue Hawker Laying Eggs

  
 
e6filmuser
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Aeshna cyanea The Blue Hawker Laying Eggs


I came across this scene in September 2012, at the brook bordering my garden. I had to run the round trip of two hundred yards, grabbing my camera and changing the lens, hoping I would not get back too late. There was only one shooting position (viewpoint), due to reeds which would have spoiled the composition. I had to crouch down and shoot downwards at quite an angle. Even so, I captured no dorsal characters.

The lens was my Tamron 180mm Anniversary edition (apochromat) but it was not able to perform to its best here. The picture was not very sharp. I have done what I can with it and have converted to monochrome to optimise detail. This was in the days before I did all my PP with TIFFs and the JPEGs have suffered considerably in the conversion. Having further processed the JPEG of the coloured image with updated software (the RAW files cannot be found) I have made a slightly improved version of it, such that the original reason for converting to monochrome is not so clear. (The BW conversion was not with the updated BW software).
Some damaged JPEG remnats can still be seen in both images.

The original reason using this image, the dragonfly having flown away before I could take another, is that it shows the ovipositor (in the shadow under the tip of the abdomen) inserted in the rotten piece of wood. Now that there is discussion in the forum about creativity I wonder how such use of monochrome might be considered.

Harold




© Harold Gough 2013


Converted with Topaz BW Effects







Reporcessed colour version




Dec 17, 2013 at 06:29 AM
gardenhelper
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Aeshna cyanea The Blue Hawker Laying Eggs


e6filmuser wrote:
I came across this scene in September 2012, at the brook bordering my garden. I had to run the round trip of two hundred yards, grabbing my camera and changing the lens, hoping I would not get back too late. There was only one shooting position (viewpoint), due to reeds which would have spoiled the composition. I had to crouch down and shoot downwards at quite an angle. Even so, I captured no dorsal characters.

The lens was my Tamron 180mm Anniversary edition (apochromat) but it was not able to perform to its best here. The picture was not very sharp.
...Show more

I don't know that it is exactly a creativity issue, but I think this post does raise a somewhat related issue that along with creativity plays into the "maximum sharpness and detail" question. Namely, can content trump image quality? (with "image quality" as often defined in terms of composition, sharp focus, suitable placement and depth of focus etc)

My answer would be unambigous - "Yes". And here is an example. You grabbed what you could get given the circumstances, and it contains enough detail to illustrate a phenomenon which is, I imagine, rarely captured, and is educational when supported by explanatory text, as is is here. The fact that it is not an image with good image quality, as conventionally defined, does not alter this argument for me.

However, I think there is another issue arising from this - despite the fact that I believe this is a worthwhile image to display, if suitably explained, is this a suitable place for doing so? I am a newcomer here and I have no view as to what this forum should most appropriately encompass. But I do have the impression that the favoured emphasis here is on image quality as conventionally defined, with some possible adjustment/extension for photographic creativity, but I somehow doubt this image, in either its colour or black and white version would be seen to fall within that extended range.

Or perhaps, on my basis of very little evidence as yet, I have misread the situation?

From a purely personal point of view I should like to know what the drift of thinking here is on this issue, as it (and perhaps more important the reasons put forward to underpin that thinking) may be relevant as to which images I think it appropriate to post, or not post, here. I imagine the same may be true for other new and potential contributors who are not very familiar with the culture here and are as yet unsure about posting here. In the context of (if I read it correctly) a desired revitalisation of the forum, this may matter.



Dec 18, 2013 at 04:07 AM
Goldenorfe
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Aeshna cyanea The Blue Hawker Laying Eggs


But a poor image is always that, one that would have been delited off memory card while out shooting ?
which is what I would have done.

phil



Dec 18, 2013 at 02:41 PM
LCPete
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Aeshna cyanea The Blue Hawker Laying Eggs


Yes to be honest it doesn't work
if the body and head had been in focus and the tail blurred that would have shown the motion of ovipositing on the wood



Dec 20, 2013 at 11:04 AM
e6filmuser
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Aeshna cyanea The Blue Hawker Laying Eggs


I now need to tidy this up.

My original intention had been to add this as a discussion subject in the “We can do better” topic but thought it might not get the desired discussion there. I now think that would have been better. Anyway, we are not there.

My intention was not to suggest that I have made an excellent image from a not very good one by applying the particular BW software I used but to show what improvement I saw in the monochrome image. My motivation came from old memories of CCTV cameras having to be monochrome to get high definition. Using a sharp image for this might not prove very much.

Unfortunately, I somewhat defeated my own aim by some further processing of the colour version, with updated software but not doing so with the monochrome version, thus reducing the differences. The latter was not intentional but I have to confess that I was unable to find the particular BW conversion plug-in. I was not in either version of Topaz BW Effects. I have now located it. It is BW Contrasted in Topaz Detail 2, nothing recognisable as the same to be found in version 3. I have now used this to transform the latest version of the colour image. I have posted these below. I have reduced the display size for both to be more in line with their quality.

None of this seeks to negate comments already made, for which, thanks. However, the option of deleting the image in the camera would have proved unfortunate.

The dragonfly is the only image I have of the very sparse wildlife in a brook which runs along one boundary of our garden. I have been campaigning to get the low levels of water (it sometimes dries up for weeks in hot summers) and the presence of sparse pond life rather than stream fauna investigated. A few days after I took the shot I attached it to an e-mail, urging action and addressed to our local authority specialist. I have no idea if that had any impact but the stream is now being monitored. It may be that this image has served the most useful purpose of any of the thousands I have shot in several decades.

If nothing else, I have discovered that uninstalling older versions of some software may be regrettable.

Harold




© Harold Gough 2013





© Harold Gough 2013




Dec 22, 2013 at 06:20 AM





FM Forums | Macro & Still Life | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.