Favorite macro photos ITT

File: 14711413_1844690842429997_2196476944867477691_o.jpg (51KB, 735x1000px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 735x1000px

Leg day

File: 14589748_1110628215710940_5235368442176420360_o.jpg (371KB, 1335x2000px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 1335x2000px

Nobody?

File: 38.jpg (124KB, 922x620px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 922x620px

>>2268528

I do animal photo as a hobby and have huge respect for people who are able to manage crisp in in focus macro pictures of live bugs. I've tried a bit and that is crazy difficult to do. It's difficult because you need to close the lens aperture quite a bit to get as much of the frame in focus as possible. That means you have less light to work with, so you need extra lighting and macro flash unless there is direct sunlight. It also means there is a cap on how fast you can set the shutter speed, so motion blur and camera shake also a problem.

I still try every once in a while but usually little birbs are the smallest I will go.

File: 4.jpg (342KB, 1922x1035px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1922x1035px

>>2268614
Well first off you never only take ONE macro image and then it's perfect. You have to do dozens, sometimes hundreds of the same subject because getting the focus and framing just right is impossible to do with deliberate movements at higher magnifications. You also usually can't check them in the field so you basically have to do it blind.
The cap on shutter speed is actually in the opposite direction, most of these will have been shot at 1/100 to 1/400 because that is how fast their flash can go (none of these are in natural light).
Then of course most of these have higher depth of field that physically possible in a single image, they are focus stacked from several dozen to hundreds of images, which means the subject in the shot was dead or cooled down so it doesn't move.
Which also means the shots were arranged. Capturing insects then cooling them down or killing them, then arranging them with proper light and pose is more productive than trying to take images in the field.

I can guarantee you all of these images were one or a combination of these.

>>2268623
Gotcha. Yeah that's too fiddly for me. I like the spontaneity of larger animal photo more.

File: IMG_3225.jpg (382KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 800x1200px

>>2268641
Totally worth it though.

File: 29194673532_c7dae1ccc6_k.jpg (733KB, 1365x2048px) Image search: [Google]

733KB, 1365x2048px

>>2268528
Took this a couple months back. Bumble Bee Robber Fly. chilling on this log. when flies and bugs would zoom past it, it would turn and face the movement. I started throwing little pebbles arcing over its head and it would track the movement. Pretty cool. It even posed for me.

File: 27194397006_780d1e3447_k.jpg (497KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 2048x1365px

>>2268692
I like this one too, but I slightly missed focus on its eyes.

File: 24857817409_2dd60e6dcd_k.jpg (529KB, 2048x1314px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 2048x1314px

>>2268693
A cute crab spider with a butt-thread

File: 25292988873_a8810f3f01_k.jpg (504KB, 2048x1162px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 2048x1162px

>>2268694
Really dunno what the heck spider this is but it's pose is funny.

File: 29824209093_0ab194ca8f_k.jpg (1MB, 2048x1181px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1181px

Little baby Orb Weavers