Bug on flowers

You need a proper camera.

PhytoPhacter:

Flower, n. 1 a : the part of a seed plant that normally bears reproductive organs : blossom, inflorescence b : a shoot of the sporophyte of a higher plant that is modified for reproduction and consists of a shortened axis bearing modified leaves; especially : one of a seed plant differentiated into a calyx, corolla, stamens, and carpels c : a plant cultivated for its blossoms

Hey, it's not our fault that evolution has produced this "United Kingdom" of showy sex organs!

Stephanie and Noel: There are probably more than 50 species of "alderfly." In other words, this is roughly like me showing a bird you you'all saying "Oh, I think that's a songbird! Yup, I'm sure it it!!!"

Spiv: I kwow. These Nikon digital SLR thingies totally suck. Not really. In truth, the camera is fine. The photographer sucks. I'm trying to be better, but professional photographers in the region need not start bankruptcy proceedings on my account!

Nah, not like that at all. I didn't even intimate that I was sure of it.

Wow. I thought it was a camera phone. You do suck!

(See how a professional artist helps others grow though constructive criticism? I had 6 years of learning to be an asshat.)

In slightly more humanizing language: what nikon DSLR is that? And what lens? The composition is actually quite nice, just everything on the technical end went horribly wrong. Good news: it's sort of like being drunk now. You'll be sober in the morning (when you get the hang of the camera), some will still be ugly no matter how fancy they get.

Also, I lied. Only part of my job is in the arts. The rest is squarely sciences. But I did work as a muralist for a time.

Wow. I thought it was a camera phone. You do suck!

It's true. I have some great photographs, but only because I have hundreds of zillions of them. I've been thinking lately about it, and trying to improve my abilities.

Maybe I need a new lens...

Anyway, it's a Nikon D70 with a Tamron SP 28-105mm zoom F2.8

This photo: No flash, camera set on macro.

Camera is good, lens is definitely not sharp (and with lots of chromatic aberration). Lens could fix a lot of things, but the color and lighting look flat too. This was taken in the shade, on a cloudy day, etc? It still shouldn't look so flat. If you're using a polarizer or other filter, ditch it. I've certainly had a couple budget filters that went straight in the trash because they sucked the life right out of the frame.

I also seem to remember seeing something about a group of older tamron lenses that had focusing issues that could be corrected through a factory servicing.

EXIF data? (shutter, f-stop, focal length, ISO sensativity, and any compensation)

It was shady. I don't have the data on it now. I've taken a few other shots I'll post shortly ... it's more likely me first and the lens second in lowering the quality, but may be I should look into new lenses.

If you do, I can highly recommend the Nikkor AFS 18-105 ED. Doesn't gather quite as much light as your current one (F3.5 vs 2.8 at the bottom), but it makes up for it in everything else. You can see a bit of what it does in the above link; about half the images in there are taken with that. I'm not a photographer; I cheat by having sweet stuff to take pics of. The gear doesn't hurt either.

It looks flat because it's underexposed, there's nothing above a midtone. Do you use Photoshop? I opened it in Adobe Camera Raw (free Photoshop plug in) and:
1. Raised the exposure by 1.5 EV to get that yellowy part of the flower (hey, I'm not botanist) to a midtone.
2. Increased contrast a little bit to stretch the histogram and give it more tonal range.
3. Increased the blacks slider a little to keep the bug from turning grayish.
4. Increased the recovery slider to keep some detail in the flower petals.

All in all, about 30 seconds of adjustment. Here's the result - http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/906/insectonflowerminnesota.jpg

I'm just saying, what you have there isn't garbage, it's fixable.

James, nice work!