# I am NOT Cute (spider)



## NateS (Apr 21, 2010)

Had to lay on my back under  limb with this guy 12" above me to get these shots.  Thank goodness he didn't poop on me or something


----------



## pbelarge (Apr 21, 2010)

It almost looks like it is reading the papers in the first shot. :mrgreen:



Do you breed these spiders?


----------



## NateS (Apr 21, 2010)

pbelarge said:


> It almost looks like it is reading the papers in the first shot. :mrgreen:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you breed these spiders?



Lol @ reading the paper....it so does now that you mention it.

Na...I don't breed spiders.  I'm proud to say that all of my insect (spiders included) photos are in the wild.


----------



## pbelarge (Apr 21, 2010)

Nate
I was breaking horns with you about the breeding part. I can tell these are all realistic wild spiders, like the ones under my bed....:mrgreen:


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (Apr 21, 2010)

Did you use the SB600 to light?  Did you use TTL?  Did you use max sync speed?  The lighting seems a bit hot, especially in #1.  With the SB600 you can use a bounce card and tilt the flash so the it's not a direct hit if you don't have any other diffusion.

Interesting looking spider.


----------



## NateS (Apr 21, 2010)

Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:


> Did you use the SB600 to light?  Did you use TTL?  Did you use max sync speed?  The lighting seems a bit hot, especially in #1.  With the SB600 you can use a bounce card and tilt the flash so the it's not a direct hit if you don't have any other diffusion.
> 
> Interesting looking spider.



Yes..I used the SB-600 and I used a mini-softbox which will soften better than a bounce card.  What looks hot?  There are no blown highlights, no hotspots, whites aren't blown so I guess I don't see what you mean by hot.  The light couldn't be any softer really since there isn't a single hot spot on the spider.  I did bump exposure just a tad in post on the spider itself as I felt it was a tad dark...maybe I went just a little far with the overall brightening with the spider.


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (Apr 21, 2010)

Okay, if you say so.  But there are a few spots on the cephalothorax (particularly on #2 below the eye) and the abdomen on both that DO have blown whites on my monitor.  As confirmation, look at the legs.  Although I can't identify this spider, I also find it hard to believe that the white strips on the legs are part of the anatomy rather than flash reflection.  

BTW, I am on a calibrated monitor.  Not trying to be confrontational, just observant.


----------



## NateS (Apr 21, 2010)

Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:


> Okay, if you say so.  But there are a few spots on the cephalothorax (particularly on #2 below the eye) and the abdomen on both that DO have blown whites on my monitor.  As confirmation, look at the legs.  Although I can't identify this spider, I also find it hard to believe that the white strips on the legs are part of the anatomy rather than flash reflection.
> 
> BTW, I am on a calibrated monitor.  Not trying to be confrontational, just observant.



Yeah, you're right there are hot spots about 1/100th the size of the spider on the front and small strips on the legs.  So what would you suggest to avoid this?  I'm already using a softbox for diffusing and backing off the flash power any will reduce in an underexposed image (already had to bump it a bit in post).  So what suggestion can you give?

I'm not arguing that there are a few hotspots now that you point them out, but I don't think it's harsh lighting.  I think it's more of the glossy finish of those body parts.  I never have problems like this with my furry jumpers, butterflies or wolf spiders, but this guy had a glossy body which I think is what caused this....not sure a way around it on these types of spiders so if you have any ideas....I'm seriously interested in hearing them.


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (Apr 21, 2010)

I'm glad you added the second paragraph, otherwise.........

Harsh lighting is subjective, but in macro land it's a pretty easy slice of the pie.

What were your settings, camera and flash. Where was your flash with respect to lens axis and distance to subject? You stated you were 12" below, but the shots look eye level.



EDIT:
Just realized the time.  I have an early morning tomorrow.  Will pick up the conversation later.

But to be brief, use an apeture no less than f/11 with macro ratios nearing 1:1.  Shutter speed can vary, but with flash and macro I usually do not go less than 1/125s and max sync speed is usual.  Flash power can be a play around.  If using TTL, I'll likely dial in a negative EC and a positive FEC.  The closer flash to subject, the larger the light source.  The larger the light source, the softer the light.  Even with a mini softbox, you may want to double baffle the diffusion material.


----------



## NateS (Apr 21, 2010)

Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:


> I'm glad you added the second paragraph, otherwise.........
> 
> Harsh lighting is subjective, but in macro land it's a pretty easy slice of the pie.
> 
> What were your settings, camera and flash.  Where was you flash with respect to lens axis and distance to subject?  You stated you were 12" below, but the shots look eye level.



He was upside down...I inverted the image for this look so imagine this image flipped upside down and that's how it was actually shot.  It was in the shade...F13, 1/200, ISO 200, 1:1 with subject about 12" from the end of my lens.  Flash is on a bracket to the camera right on the first shot...flash on camera right on the second shot .  End of the mini-softbox is about at about the end of the lens, so also about 12" from the subject.

Think I need a bigger softbox for these kinds of subjects?  Would a polarizer help cut down the flash reflections?


----------



## Hardrock (Apr 22, 2010)

Nate the shots look great. Im no expert on lighting but I usually have the same issue and I think on my part its mostly because the the flash is hitting the subject head on. Im working on getting 2 flashes and a bracket to try and hit the subject at 45 degrees (with both flashes one on each side)to the lens. I also use a lumiquest softbox and it still has that effect sometimes.


----------



## NateS (Apr 22, 2010)

Hardrock said:


> Nate the shots look great. Im no expert on lighting but I usually have the same issue and I think on my part its mostly because the the flash is hitting the subject head on. Im working on getting 2 flashes and a bracket to try and hit the subject at 45 degrees (with both flashes one on each side)to the lens. I also use a lumiquest softbox and it still has that effect sometimes.


 
Thanks...and interesting points.  You know...I was having some problems with CLS firing correctly and ended up putting the flash on the hot shoe for some shots yesterday....I don't remember if these were some of them, but they very well may be.  I'd love to have the R1C1 kit but have a hard time dropping that kind of money when I already have an SB-600.  I think I'm gonna get a sync cord so I don't have to mess with the reliability of Commander mode outdoors and I don't have to mess with the delay from it too...  This will let me keep it on my bracket all the time without issues that cause me to shoe mount it.


----------

