How do you photograph your spiders?

[Till]

Yes, Depth of Field is exactly what i meant!

 

[Crotalus]

Patience and loads of luck...

/Lelle

 

[Aviculariinae]

Patience and loads of luck...

/Lelle

So True.. I have the shaky hand syndrome,so i can,t take a decent picture to dave my life,but sometimes i get lucky!

 

[GoTerps]

So True.. I have the shaky hand syndrome,so i can,t take a decent picture to dave my life,but sometimes i get lucky!

Hehe, my pictures come out better after I've had a few beers

 

[Psoulocybe]

Metallica, while being in focus, there are a lot of problems with that shot.

The color is awful and it's very noisy. When talking macro photography, poor equipment shows.

 

[Aviculariinae]

Hi,

Metallica, while being in focus, there are a lot of problems with that shot.

The color is awful and it's very noisy. When talking macro photography, poor equipment shows.

While this is true,he has still captured the point in the picture that he wanted,not the surroundings.

 

[Psoulocybe]

yeah... a couple beers can help sometimes. I wish I could do that before I go to the pistol range

 

[priZZ]

So True.. I have the shaky hand syndrome,so i can,t take a decent picture to dave my life,but sometimes i get lucky!

Hey! That's why You need to buy a tripod!

 

[Spider-man 2]

Practice...practice....practice! Good macro won't make you a good photographer, neither will great macro. Same with drawing, sports, instruments, and so on.

Understanding and ultilizing compostion, color, and design wouldn't hurt either. Right, Aidan? hehe

 

[metallica]

Metallica, while being in focus, there are a lot of problems with that shot.

The color is awful and it's very noisy. When talking macro photography, poor equipment shows.

then please show me a good macro you made.

 

[Windchaser]

Metallica, while being in focus, there are a lot of problems with that shot.

The color is awful and it's very noisy. When talking macro photography, poor equipment shows.

Don't forget that you are most likely not seeing the original full resolution image. I suspect that it was resized and the compressed more aggressively for posting on the internet.

 

[Windchaser]

My biggest concern so far has been the lens that I use (and secondly the lighting). I had a Sony Mavica CD1000 SLR that I loved - but in a moment of hormonal stupidity during my last pregnancy I sold it and bought a Sony Cybershot (aka - piece of crap). The lens is small and the "macro mode" is a joke.

I'd like to find a lens that will pick up enough light even in lower-light settings without having to use the flash as much (or just use an external light source).

I also think I we have some lights in the garage that were used in a furniture store display that may help with the light issue.

Without going into a DSLR, I would suggest that you look at the Canon S2 IS or the Sony H1. There are a couple of other cameras that compare with these two but I don't know the specifics.

 

[danread]

If you want a good value digital camera i can highly recommend the Olympus C-5050z, it should be quite cheap on ebay now that it no longer in production. It's a great camera, and has a really good macro, one of the best in it's class. The latest model in the series is the Olympus c-8080, which by all accounts is even better. You can see some of the photos i've taken with the c-5050 here. Most of these were taken with natural light, but i've recently bought an external flash that i've been having a lot of fun with.

Cheers,

 

[shogun804]

i feel i take good pictures for what type of camera i have, lighting i never worry about it, what ever happened to using a flash??

 

[T.Raab]

T. Raab, please cut the sony fanboi crap.
That camera is pretty nice... but it is not THE OMG HOly F#ing GRAIL of cameras.

Hi,

i didnt say that it is the holy grail or something in this way. But you can ask all those who are photographing with the F717 that its a really good cam and one of the best Semi-Prof-Cams. If you dont think so - its ok. I would ever buy this one. (the optic from Zeiss is really fantastic)

Next step would be a D-SLR with a good Macro-objectiv with a complete price of about 1.500€ (about 1.900 US$) and my Sony did "only" cost 400€ (about 550 US$). So there is much difference in the price but the Sony has the pic-quality of a DSLR for less money.

 

[Psoulocybe]

ok... no.... $1900 is a little ridiculous.


You can pick up a used D20 w/ a couple lenses for under $1000 US

Metallica, I don't do macro. I don't have the equipment... the closest I can show to give you an idea what a cheap fuji does w/ a macro shot is this:

BTW, I cannot think of one time I have heard someone recomend a sony as a semi-pro camera on any of the photography sites I frequent.

Canon S2 IS is a great recomendation... I've been tempted to pick one of those up for my mom.

 

[danread]

Metallica, I don't do macro. I don't have the equipment...

You don't do macro, but you are willing to sit here and criticise other peoples macro photos, and fire off opinions on what cameras are good or not without having owned a camera with a good macro? hmmm :?

 

[bugsnstuff]

i use my trusty fujifilm S3000 for web and family 'snaps', it has a good zoom and a macro adequate for my purposes.

dont forget that:
1. most pictures are cropped and resized down to around 800x600, or less, for internet use, they are also compressed to shrink the filesize, so most pics seen on here are not the quality of the original.
2. most users are only going to use the ob flash, now this is all but useless for macro photography as most of the light misses the subject, so a brightly lit area is needed to be honest, natural light being much more pleasing as the NATURAL colours are displayed rather than excessive blue from flourescent and yellow from incandescant.

in my opinion pic a brand with good optics ( i have seen pictures from an old Olympus C-1400 XL that would blow away the majority of high mp cams of today ) and don't let those cameras with a low price tag and high mp tempt you.

oh, and lastly, dont forget that even professional photographers take hundreds of shots for a handful of excellent ones, so dont be suprised if you only have a couple of 'excellent' pics out of 50 or so, thats what digital is for, delete the not so good ones and try try again


click here for a sample image of mine

 

[Raqua]

Equipment means almost nothing Becca.

When talking macro photography, poor equipment shows.

Am I the only one who noticed some crap here ??

I also own DSC717 and for that price it is great cam. I bought it almost 3 years ago and in that time it was quite superior to other cameras in it's category. Getting a better one would make me buy DSLR and double my expenses. Today all cameras are cheaper, even DSLR's, but I still don't feel like I really need to switch to those. It is a decent camera and I'm sure you would not make a better macro with yours than me ...
So you are really the one that should cut that ..... T.Raab wrote that it is a good cam and he has some great pics to support that on his website. I didn't like those on your web as much ..

 

[T.Raab]

ok... no.... $1900 is a little ridiculous.
You can pick up a used D20 w/ a couple lenses for under $1000 US

Hi,

i didnt talk of used cams ! - I've talked from new one. BTW: I'm going to use the german prices for comparison and for a DSLR you have to pay here in germany about 1.000 EUR (the Canon 20D begins new with about 1.200 EUR [click me]) and a good Macro is also very costly.

Btw. I did all my photos without any Macrolense. A good macrolens (f.e. Canon 250D or Canon 500D) cost "only" 80 EUR instead of a good Macro-objectiv (f.e. Sigma EX 180mm 3.5 APO HSM IF Makro S [click me]) about 650 EUR.

So if you add those two DSLR components you get a price of about 1.850 EUR (this is 2.230 US$ [rate of today (30.06.05): 0,83])

Is this ridiculous ??? (My 1.900 is a median and not so ridiculous as you think).

just my 2 cents ....