First time I've caught one of these displaying the underwing and abdomen. Flash Vs natural light comparison. I dropped the colour temp of the flash shot to my normal 5200'C. The colour match seems quite good. Both shots focus stacked
Handsome creature, very well captured I like the flash shot best. Or it could be I prefer f10 to f4, or maybe there are stacking differences. The natural light shot looks a little duller, perhaps?
excellent shot of the moth .. his wings look almost like a tapestry .. beautiful colours .
interesting the diff between the flash and the natural lighting ..
better detail/contrast on the moth with the flash, but i love the oof in the background with the natural lighting ..
Eyvind Ness mentioned the diff fstops .. which i cant access .. ??
but surely you can still get that beautiful softness if you use your external flash .. just upping the shutter speed to compensate if you're letting in too much light .. i'm a sucker for a shallow depth of field . i love the effect ..
rozdesign wrote:
excellent shot of the moth .. his wings look almost like a tapestry .. beautiful colours .
interesting the diff between the flash and the natural lighting ..
better detail/contrast on the moth with the flash, but i love the oof in the background with the natural lighting ..
Eyvind Ness mentioned the diff fstops .. which i cant access .. ??
but surely you can still get that beautiful softness if you use your external flash .. just upping the shutter speed to compensate if you're letting in too much light .. i'm a sucker for a shallow depth of field . i love the effect .. ...Show more →
I did mention this. If you right-click on the images, and select Properties, you should be able to get to a dialog that displays exif-data. I am pretty sure the difference in bg blur is due to the f-stop differences, f10 vs f4, and not the quality of light. However, I believe Brian stated these are stacks, and if the individual pictures within the stack have differing f-stops, this theory falls apart.
Fizzog - think this one is actually Pyrausta purpuralis but it's very similar to P. aurata
Rozdesign - I could open up the aperture on the flash shots although I'd probably end up with almost natural light shots. Fraid I Like to get as much of the insect as possible in focus - even at F10 you do not get that at this magnification with a single shot given the shooting angles.
I'm fairly certain that the in focus parts of the moths wing in both shots have nearly the same resolution but the flash shots will look sharper due to the higher contrast.
LordV wrote:
Thanks for the comments and discussion
Rozdesign - I could open up the aperture on the flash shots although I'd probably end up with almost natural light shots.
Brian V.
... or perhaps you could just close the aperture on the natural light shots to f10 also. Then we could concentrate on comparing the quality of light, and eliminate f-stop as a parameter. Now the comparison is difficult, since both the aperture and the light is different in these excellent shots.
Eyvind Ness wrote:
... or perhaps you could just close the aperture on the natural light shots to f10 also. Then we could concentrate on comparing the quality of light, and eliminate f-stop as a parameter. Now the comparison is difficult, since both the aperture and the light is different in these excellent shots.
If only I had enough natural shaded light to do that
I did focus stack both moths to elliminate DOF/aperture effects as far as the moth was concerned. Neither apertures used would have been giving significant diffraction softening.
I like the flash shot best. Or it could be I prefer f10 to f4, or maybe there are stacking differences. The natural light shot looks a little duller, perhaps?
