HOME | DD
dalantech β Baited Bumblebee Series 1-3
by-nc-nd
#bee #bumblebee #eating #feeding #insect #macro #macrophotography #topaz
Published: 2016-02-23 17:58:51 +0000 UTC; Views: 966; Favourites: 23; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Technique: I used a syringe to inject artificial nectar into some flowers to give this Bumblebee a reason to let me get close. This species isΒ very skittish, soΒ even with the bait it wasn't easy to photograph. Lots of deleted frames. I'm not a big fan of black backgrounds, but I like how the Glossa (tongue) turned out.Tech Specs: Canon 70D (F11, 1/125, ISO 200) + a Canon EF-S 60mm macro lens with 25mm of extension + a diffused MT-24EX (flash head "A" set as the key and "B" as the fill, both on the Canon flash mount). This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held. Camera set to expose the natural light in the background, with E-TTL flash metering exposing the subject.
Related content
Comments: 23
It is an interesting shot of a Bumblebee at work, but it would have been better if the bee was more visible. Visible in the sense that though it's a close-up, we would be able to see a bit more of its body and wings, which would add depth to the picture and act as a size reference between the bee and the flower.
The flower could have been shown a bit more for the same reason; to create an illusion of depth and act as a size reference with itself and the bee.
Taking a wider-angled shot could establish more negative space in the picture, making it easier to read on first glance.
But all in all, it's a nice shot, and the detail in it is phenomenal, as we can see every individual hair on the bee's legs and the small bits of pollen going into its sucker and the residue of the plant.
Great job!
π: 0 β©: 1
I came really close, for the first time ever, to marking this review as "unfair". If you want to see more of the exact same species then take a look at 1-1 and 1-2 of the exact same series.
The whole point of the image you critiqued is to show you more detail, and I can't do that at a magnification that's low enough to show you the entire subject. Physics says no...
Showing you more of the flower is almost pointless, because it's not the subject.
Honestly the only reason I marked your review as fair was so I could point out the flaws in it -so I could critique your critique...
A much better assessment would be to comment on the dark background, something that I don't normally do because even I don't like the way that it looks. But I posted the shot anyway because I liked the way that the glossa looked.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, then if you noticed this yourself, why request any critique?
π: 0 β©: 1
To see if someone can catch a defect that I didn't.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, well okay. Well, when you said that I didn't pay attention to the other two pictures in the set, I didn't think I was supposed to. I thought you meant to critique that one specific deviation. Sorr-ee.
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually I see your point, and I agree that the image has to stand on its own. But it still doesn't make sense, to me, to dismiss a portrait because you can't see more of the subject.
π: 0 β©: 1
No, no, I wasn't dismissing it at all! I even favourited it! I was just pointing some things that tweaked my eye a little bit. When I first saw it on the "Critiquables" list, I couldn't make it out a first 'til I looked closer. I was just trying to give constructive suggestions.
(Believe me, I don't know many technical terms, so it can also be hard to fill a minimum of 100 words on photography.) So, I rambled on a bit. No hard feelings intended.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, that's good. Because I'm not going around to troll or offend people.
π: 0 β©: 1
I honestly didn't get that impression. But it was kinda like you were complaining that I didn't photograph someone's feet in a portrait photo
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, well I'm sorry. xD Didn't mean to come off like that.
π: 0 β©: 1
Congratulations!!
Your wonderful Art has been placed in our Feature folder at
Β NaturesHaven
Kind Regards!!
Ancient--One
Founder
Co-Founders
π: 0 β©: 1
You're very welcome!!!
π: 0 β©: 0
Superb detail you've captured here. I know first hand how difficult it is to get a good shot of bees, they're not called busy for nothing!
I'd say I would have attempted to use more of the subject in the shot, but still, one cannot argue with that level of detail, especially, as you say,
the richness of the amber tongue. Fantastic!
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks
The only way to get more of the critter in the frame at 1.7x would be to shoot with a full frame sensor. But due to the angle and the fact that I wanted to limit how much of the flower was in the scene (too much in the foreground and out of focus) the only thing a full frame sensor would give me is more of the bee's body. Unfortunately it would have been out of focus, so I don't know what value it would have added. When I take these kind of shots my intent is to isolate the head, like taking a portrait of a person, and I want the viewer's attention on the important bits.
Here's the full body shot of that same species, taken during the same session (maybe not the exact same bee):
I'm trying to extend my range, and not have a "comfort zone".
π: 0 β©: 1
Sure, I'm in the same boat, I like trying new things. I was perhaps thinking of this picture too commercially, as an entophile I found it fascinating. Anyway you're doing brilliant work, pleasure to follow you sir
π: 0 β©: 1