taking pictures of tarantulas

whitehaze2008 · Dec 24, 2007

ok ok ok
so i am about to buy a 400 dollar camera, very very nice....
what do i need to do to capture the amazing colors of a tarantula. What mode...is it portrait or auto that captures the colors....

i have used both and niether seem to be working....
but that could be cause i have an older camera.
any of you tarantula photo people out there care to share how you take good pics of ur T's?

thanks
DAVID

Talkenlate04 · Dec 24, 2007

What camera are you getting?

miarachnids · Dec 24, 2007

I'm no expert but macro is very important for gettind good detail.

My 2 cents

SuperRad · Dec 24, 2007

I was wondering about types of cameras and techniques for professional looking pix as well. Things like how lighting should be set up, camera angles, glare issues with enclosures, etc.

Also, I'm not four hundred dollar dedicated, but any tips on buying a moderately affordable cam that will take a decent pic? I just got an Avicularia avicularia who is just too pretty for my crappy cam phone.

matthias · Dec 25, 2007

There are three things you need to know about taking pictures of T's:
Lighting
Lighting
Macro, and
Lighting!

Get as much, bright full spectrum lighting you can. I through macro in there but if your camera has a decent zoom you should be OK.

desertdweller · Dec 25, 2007

whitehaze2008 said:
ok ok ok
so i am about to buy a 400 dollar camera, very very nice....
what do i need to do to capture the amazing colors of a tarantula. What mode...is it portrait or auto that captures the colors....

i have used both and niether seem to be working....
but that could be cause i have an older camera.
any of you tarantula photo people out there care to share how you take good pics of ur T's?

thanks
DAVID

THANKS for asking this David. I have a new Nikon cool pix 7500 and don't plan on buying more. I want to know too AS YOU HAVE ALREADY ASKED, how to get good pics with what we have now, and not have to spend a fortune on something else. Now, let's see what everyone has to say! Thanks again, David
Sydney

Xaranx · Dec 25, 2007

The whole point of buying one of the more expensive cameras isn't so you can flip a dial and take awesome pictures, that isn't how it works. If that's all you want to do save your money and buy something else. If you wanna take good pictures, you need to actually start messing with different settings and setting them up properly. Macro mode, aperture, shutter speed, exposure, and flash settings are all things you will need to learn and mess around with.

The absolute best camera for taking pictures is the one you know the best. Practice makes perfect, and not every picture is gonna come out great, I usually take 5-10 for one or two good pictures.

Also, it's not all about the megapixels, it's about the quality of the camera itself. The only real reason to go above 6 or 7 MP is if you want to print out poster sized prints.

Edit: Example picture, this is an old picture I took with a 5 year old canon a75, 3.2 MP point and shoot.

Here is one I took with my Canon S3, it's a pretty awesome camera for macro shots.

whitehaze2008 · Dec 25, 2007

hum

perhaps its lighting then
cause i want the awesome array of colors versicolor and GBB's have but cant seem to capture it yet.
oh well practice makes perfect.

syndicate · Dec 25, 2007

i use a cheap camera.can buy it for round 100 dollars
nikon coolpix 5000
takes good shots tho
examples:

imjim · Dec 25, 2007

whitehaze2008 said:
ok ok ok
so i am about to buy a 400 dollar camera, very very nice....
what do i need to do to capture the amazing colors of a tarantula. What mode...is it portrait or auto that captures the colors....

i have used both and niether seem to be working....
but that could be cause i have an older camera.
any of you tarantula photo people out there care to share how you take good pics of ur T's?

thanks
DAVID

The current Canon PowerShot cameras all have macro function and take great photos with accurate color. Lighting is very important. Typical indoor incandescent lighting will give a yellow look unless you adjust the White Balance. I am using the new 6500 fluorescent bulbs which is closer to sunlight and camera flash. Look into a DIY light box. You can get professional results inexpensively.

Stan Schultz · Dec 25, 2007

whitehaze2008 said:
ok ok ok
so i am about to buy a 400 dollar camera, very very nice....
what do i need to do to capture the amazing colors of a tarantula. What mode...is it portrait or auto that captures the colors....

The camera that you buy is only a small part of the equation. A $5,000 camera will take garbage pictures as well as a $50 one. And a $50 camera can, under the right conditions, take pictures almost as good as a $5,000 one if the photographer knows what their doing. A high end camera will only limit you on the high end. It'll do nothing extra for you on the low end.

First, you need to learn the fine points and tricks of your camera. They're complex instruments and you need to know yours extremely well, almost instinctively, to know what it's capable of and what it's not. You need to take lots and Lots and LOTS and LOTS of photos, varying the conditions over and over again until you instinctively know how cameras in general work and specifically how yours works.

Then, you need to know the basics of close-up and wildlife photography. A lot of this can be gained by reading books from your local library. If you find anybody in your area who gives a lecture on such photography it might be worth the $50 or $100 apiece to attend one or two. Frequently, college art departments and local camera stores sponsor such lectures and often get in big name photographers for them. You can pick up a lot of pointers for very little time and effort.

Or, as most folks do, you can just start taking pictures, and after 5 or 10 years of wasted time and effort maybe finally figure out what you're doing wrong.

Lastly, a lot of people swear by their expensive macro lenses for close-ups. These are not necessary. You can use "portrait lenses" instead. These are add-on lenses that fit onto your camera's regular lens to change the focal length. For less than about $50 you can get the equivalent of a huge, expensive macro lens. Cameras with removable lenses usually take generic portrait lenses (cheap, less than $50), but cameras with fixed lenses take custom made lenses (cost a little more, $50 to $100, or so). You'll need to get the ones that fit your particular camera and that may mean doing a little detective work.

If your camera can take generic portrait lenses, go to one of the larger camera stores in your area and buy them off the shelf.

If your camera has a fixed lens, you'll need to buy the ones that are made specifically for your camera. You can find them at the larger mail order camera stores that advertise in the photographer's magazines. They all sell over the 'Net. Or, do an Internet search.

There are those purists who, after spending $1000 on a special macro lens, will decry the practice of using $50 portrait lenses, but that's because they're trying to justify squandering all that money to the spouse. In fact, several decades ago the scientists and technicians at Kodak (no less!) ran side-by-side tests and found that there was very little difference between photos taken with macros and photos taken with portrait lenses. (Kodak 1969a, below.)

Close-up and macro photography are other whole new ballparks on top of the simple sort of photography I mentioned at the beginning. Here are several technical manuals on the subject. These are hard to find anymore; they may be out of print. But, they're well worth the bother. Warning: They're quite technical and you'll have to read them 3 or 4 times before you can wrap your brain around the concepts. You can try to locate copies through http://www.abebooks.com, http://www.booksprice.com/ or http://www.bookfinder.com/.

Eastman Kodak Company. 1969a. Close-up Photography. Rochester, NY. Publication number N-12A.

─── 1969b. Photomacrography. Rochester, NY. Publication number N-12B.

─── 1970a. Photography through the Microscope. Rochester, NY. Publication number P-2.

─── 1970b. Basic Scientific Photography. Rochester, NY. Publication number N-9.

Enjoy your shutterbug tarantula!

Talkenlate04 · Dec 25, 2007

You need to take lots and Lots and LOTS and LOTS of photos

I think this is the best method myself. I did not read my book for my camera at all. I just kept taking pics till I started learing the cause and effects of changing something on the settings dial and the end results. I think I do ok.

fartkowski · Dec 25, 2007

Pikaia said:
The camera that you buy is only a small part of the equation. A $5,000 camera will take garbage pictures as well as a $50 one. And a $50 camera can, under the right conditions, take pictures almost as good as a $5,000 one if the photographer knows what their doing. A high end camera will only limit you on the high end. It'll do nothing extra for you on the low end.

First, you need to learn the fine points and tricks of your camera. They're complex instruments and you need to know yours extremely well, almost instinctively, to know what it's capable of and what it's not. You need to take lots and Lots and LOTS and LOTS of photos, varying the conditions over and over again until you instinctively know how cameras in general work and specifically how yours works.

Then, you need to know the basics of close-up and wildlife photography. A lot of this can be gained by reading books from your local library. If you find anybody in your area who gives a lecture on such photography it might be worth the $50 or $100 apiece to attend one or two. Frequently, college art departments and local camera stores sponsor such lectures and often get in big name photographers for them. You can pick up a lot of pointers for very little time and effort.

Or, as most folks do, you can just start taking pictures, and after 5 or 10 years of wasted time and effort maybe finally figure out what you're doing wrong.

Lastly, a lot of people swear by their expensive macro lenses for close-ups. These are not necessary. You can use "portrait lenses" instead. These are add-on lenses that fit onto your camera's regular lens to change the focal length. For less than about $50 you can get the equivalent of a huge, expensive macro lens. Cameras with removable lenses usually take generic portrait lenses (cheap, less than $50), but cameras with fixed lenses take custom made lenses (cost a little more, $50 to $100, or so). You'll need to get the ones that fit your particular camera and that may mean doing a little detective work.

If your camera can take generic portrait lenses, go to one of the larger camera stores in your area and buy them off the shelf.

If your camera has a fixed lens, you'll need to buy the ones that are made specifically for your camera. You can find them at the larger mail order camera stores that advertise in the photographer's magazines. They all sell over the 'Net. Or, do an Internet search.

There are those purists who, after spending $1000 on a special macro lens, will decry the practice of using $50 portrait lenses, but that's because they're trying to justify squandering all that money to the spouse. In fact, several decades ago the scientists and technicians at Kodak (no less!) ran side-by-side tests and found that there was very little difference between photos taken with macros and photos taken with portrait lenses. (Kodak 1969a, below.)

Close-up and macro photography are other whole new ballparks on top of the simple sort of photography I mentioned at the beginning. Here are several technical manuals on the subject. These are hard to find anymore; they may be out of print. But, they're well worth the bother. Warning: They're quite technical and you'll have to read them 3 or 4 times before you can wrap your brain around the concepts. You can try to locate copies through http://www.abebooks.com, http://www.booksprice.com/ or http://www.bookfinder.com/.

Eastman Kodak Company. 1969a. Close-up Photography. Rochester, NY. Publication number N-12A.

─── 1969b. Photomacrography. Rochester, NY. Publication number N-12B.

─── 1970a. Photography through the Microscope. Rochester, NY. Publication number P-2.

─── 1970b. Basic Scientific Photography. Rochester, NY. Publication number N-9.

Enjoy your shutterbug tarantula!

Very well said.
I am always looking for ways to improve my pictures.
Reading books, looking online, asking tons of questions.
I found that the smallest, easiest setting sometimes make a huge difference in the outcome.

Stan Schultz · Dec 25, 2007

Talkenlate04 said:
I think this is the best method myself. I did not read my book for my camera at all. I just kept taking pics till I started learing the cause and effects of changing something on the settings dial and the end results. I think I do ok. ...

You are quite correct. But had you read the books, had you attended a few seminars, you would have reached your current state of excellence much sooner and with a lot less wasted time, effort, and possibly film.

Film cost in the "good old days" used to be a huge concern, as was the fact that you never saw the results of what you were doing until days or weeks had passed. Thus, doing a lot of experimenting was very expensive, so we were usually quite careful about how many duplicates we shot and how much we changed the settings between shots. And, the time delay was maddening! We either had to have a very good memory or had to write down every niggling detail of each shot in a log book. The bookwork alone could drive a preacher to drink.

With digital cameras we can get a pretty good idea of how we're doing within seconds of taking a photo, and all our settings are right there in front of us so we can almost immediately change something and retake the shot if we don't like the results. Digital is a HUGE advance in photography.

The next huge advance would be if the camera would automagically record a list of all the settings used for each shot (from the camera's point of view), along with brief annotations by us, as part of each photo's file. That way, we could always go back a see how the shot was made anytime we wanted. No more log books!

Another myth among amateur photographers is that you have to have the largest number of megapixels possible. This is rarely the case. About the most demanding application that the amateur ever is confronted with is printing a photo at about 8" X 10", although we'd like to convince ourselves (and our spouses) that we're going to do 24" X 36" posters. [Shakes head. Laughs hysterically!]

However, the highest resolution that most consumer inkjet printers can print at is 600 dpi. Most limit themselves to 300 dpi. If you set some tight standards on yourself and insist on printing at one pixel per dot, an 8 X 10 photo at 300 dpi requires only 2400 X 3000 pixels, which is less than 7 megapixels, not 12 or 16! And, that will produce a photograph that's at least a good as you can get with any of the traditional 35 mm film cameras. (This results from the grain of the film, not the camera quality.) And, if you loosen your standards a bit and print at two dots per pixel, you only need a 3.5 or 4 Mp camera. And surprise, surprise! You can barely tell the difference in the finished photo!

And, publishing a photo on the Internet (this forum, for instance) is much, Much, MUCH less demanding because the screen resolution is 100 dpi, frequently less. So an 10 X 8 screen shot (notice I've changed the orientation to match screen shape) only requires an image of 1000 X 800 pixels at 1 pixel per dot. A 10 X 8 photo then only needs 3/4 Mp! Your cell's camera is almost good enough!

That means that unless you plan on doing big time, semi-professional or professional photography (Come on now! Don't kid yourself!), you just wasted one or two thousand dollars or more on your new 16 Mp Über-camera! Merry Christmas.

And, unless you go through an extended training regimen, you probably will never learn to use it to its full potential. You'll still be taking badly framed and poorly exposed pictures of family picnics and blurry pictures of your spiders with it for the next several years at least. Happy New Year.

There is good news, though. It does make you look like a wealthy tourist, or even like a paparazzi! Kewel!

Your Christmas Grinch Tarantula Whisperer!

lucanidae · Dec 25, 2007

Taken using macro mode with my 50mm stock lens in 8 mp with Canon Rebel XT. No adjustments from normal macro mode were made.

I just get REALLY REALLY close and recommend setting the camera on timer mode to reduce the shake of pressing the capture button. I don't use any special lighting, just the flash.

Fresh molted and eating. T. blondi female 4 inches

This one is in premolt: M. velvetasomma female 5 inches.

I was literally 3 inches away from this P. platyomma:

Talkenlate04 · Dec 25, 2007

Ahh yes film. I had a Nikon F5 film camera, (sigh) but it was stolen. I gave up hope on film this go round and bought a digital so the film cost issue is gone, and its good and free to tinker around with it, and I am going to attend the Nikon school when they swing through my area again (lessons free with the camera). Plus I got a Hp color photo printer for Christmas from the Gf! This is the first time a Christmas present has truely suprised me in a long time!

Mister Internet · Dec 25, 2007

Pikaia said:
The next huge advance would be if the camera would automagically record a list of all the settings used for each shot (from the camera's point of view), along with brief annotations by us, as part of each photo's file. That way, we could always go back a see how the shot was made anytime we wanted. No more log books!

Are you referring to something over and above the EXIF data that most cameras already provide? Even cheap point and shoots store the following data for every shot:

http://www.exif.org/samples/sony-cybershot.html

Talkenlate04 · Dec 25, 2007

Mister Internet said:
Are you referring to something over and above the EXIF data that most cameras already provide? Even cheap point and shoots store the following data for every shot:

http://www.exif.org/samples/sony-cybershot.html

I was about to say, I think my camera already does that but I could not remember what it was called. It records on the camera itself and if I put a picture online it shows all that info in a details tab I can click on.

Stan Schultz · Dec 25, 2007

Mister Internet said:
Are you referring to something over and above the EXIF data that most cameras already provide? Even cheap point and shoots store the following data for every shot: ...

DRAT!

I currently have a Sony Cybershot, DSC-V1, 5Mp, about 4 or 5 years old, and it doesn't have that feature. (Visit http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscv1/ and http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/v1.html.) My main reason for buying this particular model was the presence of a hot-shoe so I could hook up a remote flash if desired.

Here's an example of what it's capable of doing, although this won't do it justice because of resizing and readjusting the resolution. On the original, for instance, the bristles are in sharp focus from the telotarsi nearest the camera all the way to well beyond the patella on the rear, right leg.

Now I'm going to have to go out and look for another camera! And I have to figure a way to rationalize buying it to Marguerite. And, IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!

Thanks for the heads-up, I think.

gambite · Dec 25, 2007

sorry to go off-topic but, Pikaia, what kind of T is that?! I want one!

taking pictures of tarantulas

Arachnobaron

ArachnoGod

Arachnoknight

Arachnoknight

Arachnobaron

Arachnoprince

Arachnoprince

Arachnobaron

Arachnoemperor

Arachnoknight

Arachnoprince

ArachnoGod

Arachnoemperor

Arachnoprince

Arachnoprince

ArachnoGod

Big Meanie Doo Doo Head :)

ArachnoGod

Arachnoprince

Arachnoprince