Compare:
Lasius claviger at f/3.5
Lasius claviger at f/13
I wouldn't say that either image is better. The first is dreamier, more abstract, more interpretive. The second is crisp and illustrative. Quite a difference for a small tweaking of camera settings!
Most of my insect photography falls in the small-aperture realm of the second image, but on reflection I probably ought to play around more with images like the first one.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Photos posted to myrmecos.net rarely go straight from the camera to the web. Through some combination of errors related to exposure and the innate properties of digital sensors, raw images can be a surprisingly poor match to what is seen through the viewfinder. Raw images are often relatively…
Odontomachus meinerti trap-jaw ant, Argentina
One perk of being at a research university is the opportunity to shoot the various study organisms on campus. These subjects are interesting- they have to be, or they wouldn't be studied- and when the research goes public I get the chance to…
I've been doing a lot of opining on my blogs of late, and much less science-ing that I would like. So I thought I'd try bringing a little science to the photo-a-day project, by playing around with f-numbers.
I put the camera on the tripod, with my fastest lens (a 50mm f/1.8 prime) and set up an…
Among the least understood technical aspects of photography, at least for novices, is aperture. Yet aperture has profound effects on the resulting image. Consider the following series of photos, each taken with a macro setup of an MP-E lens on a Canon dSLR camera, focused at the foremost tip of…
I agree. Both are great, different intentions.
I really like the shallow depth of field of the first one, and how it isolates the heads in the foreground. But I didn't realize the white mass in the middle were eggs until I saw the second, all in focus, image. The latter probably better for that illustrated textbook on ants you are writing (wink wink).
I think both images are beautiful for very different reasons. The limited DOF in the first image has an otherworldly feel to it, a very finite reality with the rest of the infinite universe blurred away as background noise. The second brings it all into clear view and answers the question of what precisely is going on. For artistic points, the first one wins hands down; for technical points, the second definitely takes the cake.
As an ever-more presbyopic (far-sightedness related to age) individual, I relish the deep clarity of the second image.