# Spiders and some other stuff!



## kyrontf (Sep 21, 2011)

Hello all!

Macro photography has been one of my interests since I started a learning couple of months ago.  As I just joined the site, I thought I'd share some of my recent (ish) pictures with you folks and see what you think.  Comments and suggestions are very welcome. :mrgreen:

1. A big jumping spider (3/4ths of an inch in length).






2. A smaller jumping spider, about half an inch in length.  This one jumped right onto my hand while I was taking pictures!





3. I believe this is a male funnel weaver of some sort.





4. Another male funnel weaver investigating a female's web.





5. Female funnel weaver with some small prey.





6. A wandering male Callobius severus.  These are some of my favourite spiders!





7. Cross orbweaver.





8. An adult antlion I found resting on the deck.





9. Some kind of ant, apparently farming aphids!





10. A paper wasp (Polistes dominula I think).





11. Finally, a snail (Robust Lancetooth) with a passenger on its back.


----------



## orionmystery (Sep 21, 2011)

Lovely set, good start. Esp like 3 and 7.


----------



## jrice12 (Sep 21, 2011)

You have a good eye for making your spiders look menacing!  Good compositions.  Good attention to DOF, background and subject isolation.  Focus is very good in most cases.  There are some technical issues (exposure, color balance etc.) on some of them but for the most part these are good shots.  Can you tell us what equipment you used (camera, lens, etc.).  

My fav is #1 for its pose and menace (though lighting went a little south).  Like the texture of the floor, like the DOF, like the color separation between spider and surroundings and general isolation of the subject, like the framing (relative scale), eyes are place 1/3rd down from top, like the shading of the background (bright at upper left to dark at lower right - gives depth).  Great shot (except for underbelly in cutoff) - might be able to pull that up in PP if taken in RAW, though your mid-tones are already a bit low in contrast.  Looks like you don't use flash but here a little diffused fill might have been benificial.


----------



## kyrontf (Sep 21, 2011)

Thank you both, orionmystery and jrice12.

@jrice12:
Your analysis is much appreciated!  Some of the points you made I wasn't consciously aware of when I took the shots (background shading on #1 creating depth in particular).  Very helpful!  About the exposure issues, do you mean things like the blown out areas at the lower left of #4 and the web along the bottom of #5?

My camera is a Canon PowerShot SX120 IS.  Unfortunately it doesn't let me take pictures in RAW format.  I made an attempt this morning to bring out the dark area on the near side of the spider in #1.  How does this look?




I agree that fill would have been a big help.  #1 (and all the rest except #2, #6 and #11) were naturally lit only.  Presently, my lighting setup amounts to the built-in flash and a fairly strong LED flashlight.

Quick question - #6 was taken at night with the built-in flash and the outdoor lights on the deck for lighting.  The highlights on the legs seem rather hard and give the spider an almost plastic look.  Is that the sort of thing a flash diffuser would help soften?


----------



## jrice12 (Sep 21, 2011)

Yes, the newer #1 looks better, now we can see the details of where the legs attach - you did it without losing too much of the floor texture and without blowing out the highlights of the eyes etc.  

My objection to #4 was actually the blue-cast (turn the blue channel down a bit).  #5 web is acceptible (part of a general bright to dark geometric shading that leads your eye to the spider and slight blow-out there isn't a problem).  I was referring to #3 left-side rock and #7 has blown out areas right in the midst of the subject (body of spider) [and a bit of blue-cast I think] - here a small hand-held diffuser may have helped, #8 seems underexposed generally, #9 has blow out on green knob above the ant that is distracting (fill flash would be need on this one). #11 has too busy background with shell getting lost in it - needed to find a way to get the background physically farther away if you want that much DOF on the subject.

#6 has low luminance channel and this makes the colors richer (i.e. color saturation is substituded for brightness - notice this is NOT true of #8 which is just dim).  This is a question of what you want the image to do.  If you want a clinical study of the spider then you will need a dual (or ring) flash with diffusers etc.  If you want something more intimate (or menancing) you do what you did - single, harsh flash with diffused ambient lighting; the resulting shadowing gives depth and life to the critter - and, oh, that rich orange color!  If you want less highlights you can turn down and/or diffuse the flash, but this would probably cut down on the rich colors and depth.   While I don't like (and objected to) the (man-made) background, the spider is terrific - maybe a square crop that cuts out the fuzzy back part of the body and leaves in the orange up to around the first joint of the legs and in the front leaves in the two round ball things (if there is enough resolution of course)?  That is, go tight crop to bring us that orange and leave out the background - the end, non-orange, part of the legs don't do anything for the spider anyway.

Anyway, the important thing is you already have a good eye for composition - good camera angle, great poses and good image scaling and balance.  That is a great place to be starting from!


----------



## dalex100 (Sep 21, 2011)

Wow! I love those pictures. Very nice! I like the 10th. BTW, where do you live? I never had a chance to see those kind of spiders.


----------



## kyrontf (Sep 22, 2011)

@jrice12:
Thanks once again for your time and analysis.  I've learned to watch out for several new things as a result!

My intention for #6 was for it to be an intimate shot.  I hadn't realized the harsh flash contributed to the depth of the image.  At this time of year I can usually find these spiders regularly, so I'll try to take a few more shots and experiment with lighting in the next few days.  With luck, I might even be able to coax one into an area with a nice background.   I agree the background doesn't do the spider justice.  A stone or perhaps some rough ground might draw you into the spider's world better.

In any case, here are a couple of more quick revisions.

1. #6 with the cropping you suggested.  I like that it minimizes the intrusion of the background and gets you right into spider's face (maybe not the safest place to be... ).  I can't crop it any tighter without it looking strange though.  The resolution just isn't there.





2. I tried to fix the blue-cast on #4.  The image feels more vibrant now.  I do find the harshness of the reflection on the slug slime at the lower left is a little overpowering still.





@dalex100:
Glad you liked the pictures.   I live in BC, Canada.  Most of the spiders are common here, except for the Callobius severus.  They tend to be elusive for the most part.


----------



## dalex100 (Sep 22, 2011)

Are those spider dangerous?


----------



## jrice12 (Sep 22, 2011)

Update #6 is better for getting rid of the background but it doesn't make the grade - looks like there wasn't enough resolution to go that tight (and grain got blown up, etc).  Oh well...

Update on #4 is muich better on color balance.  The spider is great but this is a case where all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't get rid of the obnoxious slime thingy at the lower left. That's the way it goes, sometimes you have to nix an otherwise fine photo.  These two examples show that you need to maintain a critical eye when reviewing your images, no matter how much time and effort you put in, no matter how much you like the subject and composition, you may still have to throw them out due to technical issues.

Keep up the good efforts.  Recomend you make a handheld reflector (cardboard and tin foil) and get a hand held diffuser for your work in the field.  These will help control the natural lighting (camera in one hand reflector or diffuser in the other).  You can save up for off camera flash and so forth later.


----------



## kyrontf (Sep 22, 2011)

@dalex100:
None of the spiders in the pics have medically significant bites.  The Callobius severus can give a very painful one but that's about it.  Of course, none of them will bite unless they feel very threatened.

@jrice12:
Yeah, I see the importance of being critical.  Anyway, I will certainly keep at it and follow up on your recommendation.  I discussed flash with my father the other day and we do have one.  So I'll play around with that some too.  Once the weather clears up, I'll post some results.


----------



## Olga_pv (Sep 24, 2011)

I adore spiders, and second picture caught my attention, I think it's really good


----------



## tevo (Sep 24, 2011)

And theres a spiderweb outside my window.. right next to my bed. Goodnight! :meh:


----------



## kyrontf (Sep 24, 2011)

@Olga_pv:
I adore spiders too.  Thanks! 

@tevo:
Oh my!  Maybe the spider who built it wanted to make you a dreamcatcher.   Goodnight!


----------



## tevo (Sep 24, 2011)

kyrontf said:


> @Olga_pv:
> I adore spiders too.  Thanks!
> 
> @tevo:
> Oh my!  Maybe the spider who built it wanted to make you a dreamcatcher.   Goodnight!



Or... he wants to eat my face. :c


----------



## kyrontf (Sep 24, 2011)

I'm sure it only wants to be friendly.


----------

