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
flickr link
youtube video
Its about the photographer, not the gear - Insect Macro with a K200D
- Thread starter CorneliusK
- Start date
flowerpot
Senior Member
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:
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.
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
marcus
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.
just my 2 cents.
Last edited:
to TS, and others, Just joking...... dun take offence Ok
and donald, dun play play...marcus
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:
to TS, and others, Just joking...... dun take offence Ok
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
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:
Yes, his stacking skill is superb beside all those beautiful spiders captured.
He was featured in some international news last year.
marcus
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: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
: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.
Similar threads
