# Life of a Ladybug



## doenoe (Jun 12, 2008)

#1 Well, you crawl out of a yellow egg (of which i dont have a pic) looking a bit like this:






#2 Then you feel like making a blob of yourself and then look like this:





#3 And finally you crawl out of the blob and you'll be a beautifull ladybug:





And 2 shots just because i like them 
#4





#5





Thanks for looking
Greetz Daan


----------



## im_trying11 (Jun 12, 2008)

thanks for teaching me what a ladybug looks like i always thought it was born like #3


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 12, 2008)

Me too!  Pretty interesting stuff!  Doenoe, do you ever post a pic that _doesn't_ rock? I swear!  All fantastic shots!  

I started off with #1 saying ooo that rocks, Then looked at #2 and went Ooo, even better! then #3 and said to myself dang, better still! Then I saw #4 and my socks melted.

Awesome images as usual (!!!) but I feel you should reimburse me for the socks!


----------



## BoblyBill (Jun 12, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Awesome images as usual (!!!) but I feel you should reimburse me for the socks!


 

LOL, +1.

Dang Daan, I guess I'll have to nominate a picture from you...


----------



## kellylindseyphotography (Jun 12, 2008)

I now deem you....




The Bug Whisperer!  :hail:


----------



## spiffybeth (Jun 12, 2008)

wow, one of those was crawling around my office the past few days and we all marveled at it and and had no idea what it was. apparently it was a ladybug that had just crawled out of its yellow shell. 

thanks for this thread, daan.


----------



## mr_baseball_08 (Jun 12, 2008)

Just curious but what kind of Macro set up do you have?  You are at a lot greater than 1:1 magnification in all those shots, so you've got to be doing more than using a macro lens.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 12, 2008)

I asked him the same thing. It seems he gets asked in just about every thread. So far I think his best answer is in this message about half way down: http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1271407&postcount=9 I'm betting he has a Nikon and is using it occasionally at F32. It almost looks like those stacked images I saw in another thread here.


----------



## mr_baseball_08 (Jun 12, 2008)

I just don't see how's it possible..  I have the Canon 100mm Macro and I've taken lady bug pictures before and you can get nowhere near that close..  Regardless of aperture, something else has to be in the equation unless he's making some ungodly large crops, in which sharpness would suffer..  So I'm just not sure.


----------



## hippyatheart (Jun 13, 2008)

These pictures are extremely sharp!


----------



## Flora (Jun 13, 2008)

Oh, I love #3...ladybugs are so cute!


----------



## Chiller (Jun 13, 2008)

Excellent as always.  Really really love the fly shot. :thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 13, 2008)

mr_baseball_08 said:


> I just don't see how's it possible..  I have the Canon 100mm Macro and I've taken lady bug pictures before and you can get nowhere near that close..  Regardless of aperture, something else has to be in the equation unless he's making some ungodly large crops, in which sharpness would suffer..  So I'm just not sure.



Well, it IS possible... or we wouldn't be seeing the images here.  Whether or not he's coming clean with every detail in his steps may be uncertain but in his defense that's totally his propagative. I guess most photographers don't tell everything - I know I often don't.  If for no other reason than just to stop people from saying things I don't want to hear about how I went from real life to image and whether or not it's "OK" in _their_ opinion. Personally I think he's invented a microscopic make-up set complete with miniature mascara and highliner pencil. 

If you look at his top image he's really pushing the limits of sharpening. To make things bigger there's some pretty cool and capable tools out there like AleinSkin BlowUP and Genuine Fractal 5, either of which with I can go to about 300% before it starts falling apart and begins to start looking crystalized.  

As far as getting close there's always closeup corrective lenses. Here's two shots I took with a No. 2 AC closeup lens in combination with the lens's own macro capabilities:


With Flash
Without Flash
Actual subject is about 3/4 of an inch long.

And these are pulled back petty far. With just a #2 I can zoom up on just his head and 1st set of shoulders - including antennae. So these are about 4 times the mag as his posted images and the #2 offers very little magnification - it mostly just gets you a little closer. These are unedited and just color balanced from the RAW by the way. This camera is a total POS too. I think it sells for about $200 now and the lens is pretty low grade compared to a pro set. It's the Minolta (wanna-be SLR) A2 - which I got mainly for the bullet-time effect I was doing for a TV commercial. They're very responsive and I could afford and fire 48 of them at once from a laptop rig. This is the last remaining soldier. :hugs:

It sports a non-detachable 28mm ~ 200mm (2.8 - 3.5) with a macro at either end. It's 200mm F11 as opposed to  105mm F32 but I can easily get shots like this at f5 or 6:




This is after processing and has been scaled to 25% of it's original size. Each flower here is maybe just one or two millimeters larger than a ladybug - they are TINY little flowers! So if he scaled his only by 50% then that's just about right. Certainly not enough wiggle room for sincere doubt.

Maybe if we're real kewl and kiss lots of butt we can get him to post a detailed step-by-step for one of his images - "with pictures and arrows on the back of each one explaining what each one was in order to be used in court against us." - Officer Oddy.


----------



## doenoe (Jun 13, 2008)

thanks for the great comments everyone, really really appreciate it.
I dont do alot of special things to take these pics. I use a Canon 350D, Speedlite 430EX with a Lumiquest softbox on it and then some patience and a steady hand 
Then its of to Photoshop, open the picture and crop. Most of the time, pretty much (ill upload an original picture later on, dont have the time now) What i usually do first is levels, with very green shots you dont drag the white arrow to were the "mountain" of your histogram starts, but you go half-way. Then slide the middle arrow so it gets a bit darker. Then its of to brightness/contrast. Contrast get a +10 usually and brightness goes to -5. And after that its time for saturation, goes to about +10/+15. Then i sharpen it: 150/1.0/0. Time to open Neatimage and put the image thru that. After that open it in PS again and resize it to the size you want. Dont forget to use the unsharp mask again after that, only use these numbers then: 50/0,5/0 So there, no magic or strange selfmade lenses or something like that. 
The numbers used are not always the same, but i use these alot.  For the people who are going to try it, good luck and make sure you're going to post your outcome on TPF


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 13, 2008)

I'm definitely going to try (if you'll lend me your miniature make-up kit!  ) and will post the results.  I'm messing around the last few days with insects I catch in the house and can strap down to my desk - so I'll know what works best with this particular rig (for insects) when I'm actually in the field. I'm currently between (real) cameras but I bet I can pull something half-way decent off anyway.  We'll see.  And thank you for the details! Much appreciated!


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jun 13, 2008)

He definitely uses what he says he does, I've seen him in action...


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 13, 2008)

And you're an inspiring wizard yourself Chris! Seriously! Your shots from the Germany meet up are the best of all and by quite bit! I just had to say that because I keep forgetting to post it in that thread! If Doenoe here is the king of bugs and he is to me then you're the king of street photography! Seriously good stuff man!


----------



## Stranger (Jun 13, 2008)

Excellent series Daan! I learned something new 

What program do you use to focus stack? Or is that not stacked?
I just got a setup to reverse ,y 50mm at the end of mmy 105 and am going out today to practice focus stacking with it. Do i just blend in photoshop?


----------



## doenoe (Jun 13, 2008)

i dont stack. I shoot at F13 with a shutterspeed of 1/200, ISO 100. There was something about stacking on TPF, think i read about it yesterday. Totally forgot the thread though. You can probably find it with the search button.
im gonna try that stacking someday, it really looks very interesting.

EDIT: here ya go http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126095&highlight=stacking


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jun 13, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> And you're an inspiring wizard yourself Chris! Seriously! Your shots from the Germany meet up are the best of all and by quite bit! I just had to say that because I keep forgetting to post it in that thread! If Doenoe here is the king of bugs and he is to me then you're the king of street photography! Seriously good stuff man!



:blushing: Is that you, Mother?


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 13, 2008)

No, but I make a pretty good house pet.


----------



## mr_baseball_08 (Jun 13, 2008)

Well I took the 100mm macro out for a spin this afternoon and apparently I had forgotten how close this thing could get.  I've been doing lots of portrait work lately so I haven't macro'ed anything in a year or so.  But quickly I shot off this tomato bloom and it does get a whole lot closer than I remember.  I think I'll start taking it out more often.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 13, 2008)

Kewl!  I went ahead and kinda tutorialized Daan's process.  You can see it here: http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126794 How big are tomato blossoms? I haven't seen any for a few years now. I think they're about 2 inches across right? And your shot there is a full-frame scale of course?


@Doenoe
It would be cool if you could give it a check for correctness if you have the time. 
Thanks!


----------



## doenoe (Jun 15, 2008)

yeah, i saw the thread. Just didnt have time to reply to it yet........and i have to go now to. But i will reply in it


----------



## doenoe (Jun 15, 2008)

Just wanted to add 2 more pics. Here you can see the the larva getting ready to become a pupal. The backend is attached to a leaf and then the transformation starts





After that the skin moves to the back and you got yourself a pupal. On this pic you can see the old skin at the backend. After this it just stays flat and after a while a ladybug is born (not a very good pic, but it was the best i could do this time)


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 16, 2008)

Very awesome images!! And, mmm :hug:: , e-d-u-c-a-t-i-o-n-a-l-!

Sweet!


----------



## TCimages (Jun 16, 2008)

#4 is STELLAR work!   I'm such a loser.  I never have time to look at everyones shots anymore.  Thanks for sharing!


----------



## doenoe (Jun 18, 2008)

thanks guys 
And TC, you are most certainly not a loser. You probably just dont have alot of free time on your hands (like alot of others do  ) Plus you are the guy that taught me alot about macro photography, so you are not a loser, but a mentor :thumbup:


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 18, 2008)

I wonder if Van Gogh called himself a loser when he saw Rembrandt's work? 

Van Gogh quotes. 

I like this one so I'll modify it a little bit and call it mine:

"It is not the language of photographers but the language of nature which one should listen to, the feeling for the things themselves, for reality, is more important than the feeling for pictures." - _Bifurcator 2008_


----------



## cjkriebel (Jun 18, 2008)

this is amazing.  great lesson I called my kiddos over to look and learn they were amazed also.  awesome pictures you are really great at what you do.


----------



## tedE (Jun 19, 2008)

love 3 and 4!! great work. flies are the coolest looking things!


----------



## doenoe (Jun 20, 2008)

Glad to be some sort of teacher for the kids 
Thanks for the replies


----------

