Its about the photographer, not the gear - Insect Macro with a K200D


CorneliusK

Senior Member
Jan 23, 2010
790
0
16
#1
Found this thread on pentaxforums about this guy who takes awesome insect macro with a K200D. I know a lot of you guys love to do insect macro, so just wanted to share.

flickr link

youtube video
 

GlenWXQ

New Member
Oct 17, 2010
163
0
0
#3
of course, its not about the body, its about the lens :devil:

what lens does he use? just curious haha
 

reyreina

New Member
Dec 26, 2008
433
0
0
29
Singapore, Boon Lay
#4
of course, its not about the body, its about the lens :devil:

what lens does he use? just curious haha
i think he's the one who's pics appeared on nat geog too. last year when i check out his flickr, all the pics were taken on m 28mm f2.8 or 28mm reversed on 50mm f1.8. thats all. oh and diy flash, if i didnt rmb wrongly its some manual flash.

power of post processing. his stacking pp is :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 

detritus

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2009
2,922
3
0
shootingbugs.blogspot.com
#5
of course, its not about the body, its about the lens :devil:

what lens does he use? just curious haha
actually, its about the skill of the photographer.

just do a search on the photographer's name. is a rather beat-up reverse lens setup with bellows and teleconverter for added magnification.

my 2 cents is that while its important to have skills, its important to have the correct understanding and tools as well. its really a matter of using what u have to achieve what u want.

macro, esp insect macro, is not easy. before we jump to any conclusions that expensive toys don't help, lets take a more moderate perspective and understand that the tools are part of the journey and many of us will try different tools and through trial and error, find a setup that suits our needs.

whether u use reverse lens, raynox, TC, tubes, 1:1 macro, or specialised lenses that achieves greater than 1:1, it doesn't matter. its the outcome that matters.
 

otc

Senior Member
Feb 8, 2006
2,726
17
38
www.flickr.com
#6
To take good insects, its about the photographer above. You need to have long beard, moustache, long hairy hair and above all, to carry Pentax Gear:bsmilie::bsmilie:

marcus
 

detritus

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2009
2,922
3
0
shootingbugs.blogspot.com
#7
To take good insects, its about the photographer above. You need to have long beard, moustache, long hairy hair and above all, to carry Pentax Gear:bsmilie::bsmilie:

marcus
:bsmilie: more importantly, got good macro lens, MUST put at home, don't use... must use lau-pok equipment to make a point that its the photographer, not the gear :bsmilie:
 

JinG14

New Member
Apr 7, 2010
449
0
0
#8
salute and respect to the macro photographer.
to me i only know housefly and cockroach. guess i will nv be 1 of them hehe
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#9
very high technical skill, definitely very admirable and really, really amazing. but i can't say i enjoy all of these as photos. to me, he is an adept magnifier, but not really a great photographer.

just my 2 cents.
 

Last edited:

otc

Senior Member
Feb 8, 2006
2,726
17
38
www.flickr.com
#10
:bsmilie: more importantly, got good macro lens, MUST put at home, don't use... must use lau-pok equipment to make a point that its the photographer, not the gear :bsmilie:
to TS, and others, Just joking...... dun take offence Ok;) and donald, dun play play...:D

marcus
 

fengwei

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 25, 2004
14,462
12
0
Queenstown
www.pbase.com
#11
very high technical skill, definitely very admirable and really, really amazing. but i can't say i enjoy all of these as photos. to me, he is an adept magnifier, but not really a great photographer.

just my 2 cents.
Shooting magnified insects is a lot difficult than shooting magnified still stuff. You need a lot practice and patience to get some keepers.

I'd say he is a very good macro photographer, and he knows what he's doing, he really has the eye/skill and most important, the patience, to take great macro photos.

And I'd be more than happy to trade him w/ my DFA100/2.8 WR macro lens if I could take similar macro shots w/ his setup :)
 

Last edited:

detritus

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2009
2,922
3
0
shootingbugs.blogspot.com
#12
to TS, and others, Just joking...... dun take offence Ok;) and donald, dun play play...:D

marcus
bro marcus, its a hobby. if not play, then do for what? ;)

i certainly mean no offence.

i just want to make the point that no one who has crouched in the mud, in the rain, or bashed through forest to catch a shot of an insect is going say that skills and patience are not important.

similarly, is it fair to say that equipment is not important? :think:

the truth is somewhere in between lah ;)
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#13
Shooting magnified insects is a lot difficult than shooting magnified still stuff. You need a lot practice and patience to get some keepers.

I'd say he is a very good macro photographer, and he knows what he's doing, he really has the eye/skill and most important, the patience, to take great macro photos.
yes, there is the technical side of things, and there's something that is more than just large things being magnified.

for example, i enjoy this shot:

http://www.pbase.com/eikin/image/75382932

or this shot:

http://www.pbase.com/eikin/image/75382943

a lot more than the same shot with just the butterfly's face and magnified eyes...

same for this:

http://www.pbase.com/eikin/image/75384716

or even this:

http://www.pbase.com/eikin/image/75393562

as opposed to any of these critters just plain magnified. certainly it involves a lot more than the "plain magnified" phrase conveys, and i acknowledge that, but what i'm saying is that, it's just... magnified, there is little outstanding value beyond that for half of those shots.

take for example this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/opoterser/4887249906/

so it's a face. great. it's really detailed. fantastic. now substitute it for your own face, centre, headshot. let's just say that wow, it's sharp from front to back and he can show your every pore. seems that wonderful? not really. why are we giving more concession for the photograph as a photograph, because we know it's hard to do it? are you saying that if i jumped off a waterfall and swam across a lava lake to get a well, not that great a photograph, and you knew that i put in that much effort to get that photograph, you'd say that it's good?

yes, it's not easy to get all of that magnification, it's not as if i haven't tried my hand at macro before.. but to me, it's also a lot harder to get an insect shot that has compositional thought put in, than just being plain scientific. which is what most good technical macro photographers do. just take the shot, wham blam, and it's enough to stun everyone with how much detail a small thing can contain. but certainly there's something more? certainly you find some of his shots better? why is that so? food for thought there, i hope.

i don't know if you get what i mean, but it's just a point of view, i never asked you to have the same way of thinking. :)
 

Last edited:

otc

Senior Member
Feb 8, 2006
2,726
17
38
www.flickr.com
#14
i think he's the one who's pics appeared on nat geog too. last year when i check out his flickr, all the pics were taken on m 28mm f2.8 or 28mm reversed on 50mm f1.8. thats all. oh and diy flash, if i didnt rmb wrongly its some manual flash.

power of post processing. his stacking pp is :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Yes, his stacking skill is superb beside all those beautiful spiders captured.

He was featured in some international news last year.:)

marcus
 

ricsal

New Member
Jun 23, 2007
1,549
0
0
#15
I dun really understand how he can managed to get a background like that. PP? for some reason not my liking. hehe.
 

true86

New Member
Oct 29, 2010
9
0
0
#16
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: brilliant!
 

true86

New Member
Oct 29, 2010
9
0
0
#18
yes, there is the technical side of things, and there's something that is more than just large things being magnified.

for example, i enjoy this shot:

http://www.pbase.com/eikin/image/75382932

or this shot:

http://www.pbase.com/eikin/image/75382943

a lot more than the same shot with just the butterfly's face and magnified eyes...

same for this:

http://www.pbase.com/eikin/image/75384716

or even this:

http://www.pbase.com/eikin/image/75393562

as opposed to any of these critters just plain magnified. certainly it involves a lot more than the "plain magnified" phrase conveys, and i acknowledge that, but what i'm saying is that, it's just... magnified, there is little outstanding value beyond that for half of those shots.

take for example this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/opoterser/4887249906/

so it's a face. great. it's really detailed. fantastic. now substitute it for your own face, centre, headshot. let's just say that wow, it's sharp from front to back and he can show your every pore. seems that wonderful? not really. why are we giving more concession for the photograph as a photograph, because we know it's hard to do it? are you saying that if i jumped off a waterfall and swam across a lava lake to get a well, not that great a photograph, and you knew that i put in that much effort to get that photograph, you'd say that it's good?

yes, it's not easy to get all of that magnification, it's not as if i haven't tried my hand at macro before.. but to me, it's also a lot harder to get an insect shot that has compositional thought put in, than just being plain scientific. which is what most good technical macro photographers do. just take the shot, wham blam, and it's enough to stun everyone with how much detail a small thing can contain. but certainly there's something more? certainly you find some of his shots better? why is that so? food for thought there, i hope.

i don't know if you get what i mean, but it's just a point of view, i never asked you to have the same way of thinking. :)

in the same vein of thought, why are you attempting to downplay the overall quality of his photos in such a manner?

a high-magnification photo is simply what it is - and to compare them with a photo taken with intended composition to include the background into the photo, is to compare apples with oranges.

"wow, this stall specialising in selling apples is really nice. the apples are really fresh and juicy. HOWEVER, i'd prefer another stall. they sell many different types of fruits. the other stall looks more colouful and cuter. selling just apples is borrrring." - what would you feel about a person who downplays the integrity of the first stall's apples by pulling in an uneven comparison simply because he doesn't get to eat the apples, perhaps? the fact may be, that the best apples, probably come from the first stall, and why so, for a very much justifiable reason that the best products of any kind often come derived from the most specialized and high-level process.

take long-exposure shots of a few rocks protruding from the sea, with a colorfully processed sky, or some sunsets for example. we all might just push it off as, "Nay, just long exposure with hours in front of the computer, i'd prefer a photo with more human elements, nature elements, just set up tripod, and wait wait wait wait, go back use computer and wait wait wait some more, why are we giving more concession for the photograph as a photograph, because we know it takes a lot of time to create the photo?"

if everything is broken down and nitpicked in such a manner, there would be much less goodness in this world left to appreciate. i sense some sour grapes here! :bsmilie: just kidding!!

just offering another of the many points of views here ;) everyone's mileage may vary, of course :bsmilie:
 

acura

Deregistered
Feb 22, 2009
100
0
0
30
#19
wow those shots are really good! i feel inspired to DIY my macro diffuser once my exams end tml:cool:
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#20
if everything is broken down and nitpicked in such a manner, there would be much less goodness in this world left to appreciate. i sense some sour grapes here! :bsmilie: just kidding!!

just offering another of the many points of views here ;) everyone's mileage may vary, of course :bsmilie:
:bsmilie:

mr true86, i hope you are happy that you have started to get my attention.

i can only hope that you do not regret this attention too late. have a nice day.
 

Top Bottom