Bifurcator
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
|
Sure, I think we agree on all points, shadow control, lighting as a composition tool, even size as an obstacle. So our only real point of contention is over how much difference is produced from impure materials and those marketed as being specifically for photography. Although one might contend in accordance with the pentagon's own research and successful experiments with marine troops killing sheep with only "mind power" (documented and released into the public record) and by the sheer number of "psychic warriors" they employ to remote sense (also documented), that the disturbance of an insect by the size color and proximity of an object is at least affected by that objet handler's confidence, beliefs, will, and assumptions in disallowing it. 
How much information is subdued by photographing an object illuminated by 5000K light filtering through a material which measures about a degree or less thermal radiation on a standard HSL/HSV color wheel and a chromaticity difference of probably less than a few nanometers Euclidean distance or Delta-E of less than about 2.0 or 3.0 in comparison with a product which is marketed as being "good" for such? I dunno but just given the fact that each image sensor model varies more than that from model to model or manufacturer to manufacturer , I'm going to claim "not much" and cross my fingers. If I'm wrong we better never take another picture on a cloudy day, under a canopy of any kind, or with any kind of common lights - even daylight would be out of the question in actuality. So just flash?
We're talking entirely about the visible light spectrum here so with only our cameras we should be able to compile very convincing test results just by setting it up logically and comparing the two results. If either produces a noticeable amount of data loss the results have spoken.
I think the major difference between your shots and mine (posted here) besides the number and size of light sources used, are due almost entirely to the differences in lenses. My lens while exceptionally good for a bridge camera, just doesn't compare to even slightly high grade lenses available for dSLR cameras. The second major difference I would assume to be the lens and bucket density differences between our respective image sensors. I'm using a tiny little 2/3" Interlaced RGBG CCD sensor with 8.3 megapixels crammed on. That's a fourth of the area of a common 4/3'rds sensor.
Edited on Nov 29, 2009 at 02:01 AM · View previous versions
|
It doesn't seem to affect most of the insects I've tried it on. In fact - in the case of some crawlers they stop and pose for me - probably trying to figure out what the heck I am / it is. 
.gif)
