Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're attempting something that is very difficult, even for professionals, and probably with insufficient equipment.
Your main problem is you used a wide angle lens and your shutter speed was too slow. With insect photography, you need either a macro lens or a telephoto (the macro should also be a telephoto but the macro is really needed for smaller insects - you can get away with just a telephoto for large ones). I can see you have a Powershot so you don't have a choice on the lens, it only reaches 60mm, which is why I say you have insufficient equipment. But your camera may have a macro setting - it won't be a "true" macro but it may help so try that and zoom in all the way. That will mean getting physically close to the insect but that's why a telephoto is more desirable - it allows you to get closer to the insect without having to get physically closer. And yes, using macro on a moving subject sounds almost impossible, that's why I say you've chosen a very difficult type of photography, even for people who have more sufficient equipment.
So the other problem is shutter speed... you need to get it much higher than 1/202 sec, at least 1/400, ideally higher. I can see from dpreview.com that your widest aperture setting is F/2.8 - use that to get the fastest shutter speed (yes, that will make getting the insect in focus very difficult but again - you've picked a very difficult subject). I don't know how well your camera handles noise but you may want to also bump up your ISO (again, if you had a DSLR, it would handle noise better and allow you to shoot around ISO 400, making a fast shutter speed much easier to obtain without introducing much noise).
Don't get me wrong, I agree with the time old argument that the equipment is only as good as the photographer - that a good photographer can take a good picture with any camera/equipment. But that's only true when you're speaking in general terms. When it comes to certain specific fields of photography - when you're trying to obtain a specific kind of photograph, the wrong equipment can absolutely be limiting, if not make it impossible.
My suggestion is, if you're really interested in insect photography, to start with still insects, not in flight. If you're just interested in photographing any kind of fast moving object, start with much larger objects that you can get closer to. For that, you mainly just need a fast enough shutter speed or a skilled hand in panning. With birds or other animals, you may also need the telephoto lens too.
You're attempting something that is very difficult, even for professionals, and probably with insufficient equipment.
Your main problem is you used a wide angle lens and your shutter speed was too slow. With insect photography, you need either a macro lens or a telephoto (the macro should also be a telephoto but the macro is really needed for smaller insects - you can get away with just a telephoto for large ones). I can see you have a Powershot so you don't have a choice on the lens, it only reaches 60mm, which is why I say you have insufficient equipment. But your camera may have a macro setting - it won't be a "true" macro but it may help so try that and zoom in all the way. That will mean getting physically close to the insect but that's why a telephoto is more desirable - it allows you to get closer to the insect without having to get physically closer. And yes, using macro on a moving subject sounds almost impossible, that's why I say you've chosen a very difficult type of photography, even for people who have more sufficient equipment.
So the other problem is shutter speed... you need to get it much higher than 1/202 sec, at least 1/400, ideally higher. I can see from dpreview.com that your widest aperture setting is F/2.8 - use that to get the fastest shutter speed (yes, that will make getting the insect in focus very difficult but again - you've picked a very difficult subject). I don't know how well your camera handles noise but you may want to also bump up your ISO (again, if you had a DSLR, it would handle noise better and allow you to shoot around ISO 400, making a fast shutter speed much easier to obtain without introducing much noise).
Don't get me wrong, I agree with the time old argument that the equipment is only as good as the photographer - that a good photographer can take a good picture with any camera/equipment. But that's only true when you're speaking in general terms. When it comes to certain specific fields of photography - when you're trying to obtain a specific kind of photograph, the wrong equipment can absolutely be limiting, if not make it impossible.
My suggestion is, if you're really interested in insect photography, to start with still insects, not in flight. If you're just interested in photographing any kind of fast moving object, start with much larger objects that you can get closer to. For that, you mainly just need a fast enough shutter speed or a skilled hand in panning. With birds or other animals, you may also need the telephoto lens too.
Thanks for the comments. I do plan on getting a DSLR, but my budget is forcing me to wait for now. But you're right, I need to think about a new camera. Dpreview.com is pretty cool!
My powershot does have a macro setting. The pix taken with the macro setting are decent to good, IMO. I've posted a few on the insects thread here.
I enjoy photographing lots of subjects, but usually stick to what my camera is good at, closeups, etc. I've tried Landscapes but the smallest aperature is F8. When you really look at my landscapes they just aren't as sharp as I would like. That's why I have been taking lots of smaller critter shots, and flowers!
Thanks for the response. By the way, those pictures you posted are great.
No, he's not missing a leg. It's tucked behind him (snow was too cold?), but it LOOKS like he's missing a leg which isn't a good thing.
I see your point about the eye. I was actually a little disappointed I didn't get as much "glimmer" as I wanted to. I have a number of other shots from about the same time that have much better eyes. Unfortunately, other than the eye, they kind of sucked.
I did crop this photo a bit. I can go back to the original and throw it off center. I'll also mess with the contrast a bit.
This is one from the same batch with even less editing (small crop, minor increase in saturation). He's turned his head the other way and you get a MINOR glimmer off of the eye. Is this any better?
I just want to say I appreciate the difficulty of taking wildlife in their natural environment (versus controlled environment - zoo, farm, feeder) photo or a photojournalist's people in action photo (versus a posed people photo or scenery photo). Your observation and reflex skills just to get the camera adjusted and the shot off in seconds before the subject runs or flies away or the moment is gone in the case of news photos are underappreciated when people look at the final product (the photo).
Laura, I could not agree with you more ! I do not take pics of animals at parks or zoos, in the wild or nothing for me. Shooting wildlife really makes you think and react quickly. The unpredictable subject is really appealing to me. Frustrating at times, but appealing .
If I may comment on the bug photo above, even with a DSLR you are going to encounter "I have the wrong gear" syndrome. Unfortunately kit lenses are not the fastest glass and it takes time to develope manual focusing skills for shooting small wildlife subjects. Sometimes you get lucky and the focus falls spot on, but with slow focusing glass you will miss more photo ops than you capture. I hope to be free of slow glass myself someday .
the trend here in new york is for those free range zoos.... everytime we go i think more ofton then not we see mostly nothing as alot of the animals are out of sight.. while i appreciate the fact the animals might like it the almost 100 bucks it cost for a couple with parking,admission and tolls makes it sooooooooooo not worth it.
I think those are becoming the trend for wildlife parks, Disney has one that is huge. I would'nt find it exciting for that money either Mathjak. I think the point she was making is that it does'nt really count as wildlife photography as it is not in the wild. I hope I'm not reading into that too much. While it is the only way some of us will ever see certain species, for me it is not wildlife it is zoo life. Now if 2G's would be kind enough to take a few of us to Africa on Safari..... ok i'm reaching, we can go to the zoo
can anyone help me figure out why I can't get detail on shooting swans?? I meter the camera on them, have tried different settings but lose the detail in the white body area. the second picture I would like to know if there is a way to emphasize the air bubble dropping from the bill near the water. thankshttp://i1014.photobucket.com/albums/af265/blueflames50/RI%20flowers%20and%20stuff/-0188.jpg (broken link)http://i1014.photobucket.com/albums/af265/blueflames50/RI%20flowers%20and%20stuff/-0219.jpg (broken link)
Underexpose slightly to make sure the detail is captured. Shooting in RAW would help with that. This may mean the overall image is too dark but in post processing, you can brightening it up while burning in the hot areas so they don't lose detail. If you have Photoshop, the latest ACR has a "recovery" option which will also help and may mean you don't have to mess with burning.
Underexpose slightly to make sure the detail is captured. Shooting in RAW would help with that. This may mean the overall image is too dark but in post processing, you can brightening it up while burning in the hot areas so they don't lose detail. If you have Photoshop, the latest ACR has a "recovery" option which will also help and may mean you don't have to mess with burning.
thanks....I shoot in RAW, use Lightroom with recovery option...never thought to "underexpose"...will try it thanks!
the feathers are blown and look like vanilla ice cream... if you have a histogram make sure its off the right wall with a little space. you want to try to keep the feathers white by balancing the exposure between blowing them out and getting gray feathers.... while you can try to brighten them later on in processing i find to get them really white again comes at the expense of bringing up the detail in the feathers as it can get noisy.
the recovery option merely turns the brightness down on whatever is blown out but its still lost the detail.
Last edited by mathjak107; 04-19-2010 at 06:09 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 
.
