In case anyone missed the "Dirty Pictures" subject line I have a rescan of the insect slide at http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/photoforum/scanner/ including an actual-pixel view of the head detail before and after cleaning the innards of the scanner. WRGill wrote > Insect > Insect photography has always gotten my attention. > I have never been able to photograph insects without first killing them. > I would be interested in hearing just how the shot evolved, and I really like > the soft subtle colors you've shown us. Thanks for your inaugural review. Good to hear from a pro. The shot evolved by chance. I had a strip of mirror laid on the window sill of my studio. I saw the fly (not a mosquito) stood on it so set up my tripod, camera, 180mm macro and focus rail. The shot through the viewfinder was pretty dull. For a giggle I got hold of a piece of "laser card" and held it behind the insect just out of shot. I then shone a desk lamp onto the card and moved the card to get the colour effect I was after. I shot the frames wide open (f4.5). This gives the wide bokeh effect and the circular patterns you can see. Using a smaller aperture does not yeild a nice background: it just becomes spotty. I only got a few frames then I disturbed it and it flew off. I don't believe in killing bugs to photograph them. Greg wrote. <<< Bob Talbot (Insect) - Your generic title 'insect' interests me. Usually people who take this much care in shooting a bug at least put the common name of the bug if not the Latin name. So I get the feeling you care little about this specimen. However, you have a double frame on the image which seems to indicate that you took some pride in the shot as a whole. I love the colors of the background. They remind me of a pair of checkered pants I really liked as a kid in the '60s. (Not exactly macho but I'm into color). I don't think I've ever seen as bright and cheery a background for an insect shot before and that's what I really like. The whole shot is light and airy like the mosquito. Her head is mostly sharp but her body is blurring into the background .... >>> The generic title: I called it "Insect" because it was not intended to be a nature shot. It was indeed not an accidental choice of word. In this case the shot I was after was as much about the background. All I wanted was to have the eyes sharp - which they are on the slide - and let the rest drift out of focus. It is colourful: I agree. It's just a photo .... Per wrote: <<< Interesting lines, perfect placement of the shallow focus. Perfect placement of the bug in the frame too. The ring-like structures are probably an optical necesity, but somewhat distracting nevertheless. >>> We all see things differently, that makes your take of the shot no less valid. As I noted above: the background was the key thing I saw in this shot. If I had a choice they would be perfectly round not showing the blades of the dia-thingy. I would never enter this shot in a competiton. Either the judge would reject it as being not a nature shot or more likely insult me by suggesting the background was generated artificially in PhotoShop. Digital really has removed the mystery from photography ;o( Have I missed anyone? Ah, Shawna did a review but it was for the previous week. Thanks to all three reviewers. I enjoyed reading all the comments on all the images. It's very revealing to see how others sometimes read an image completely different from me. That's refreshing to know: it always reminds me there is no absolute standard of quality / interpretation. I've enjoyed contributing reviews in the past. However, Jimmy's comment has not gone unnoticed: still no apology forthcoming. Time will tell. Bob Talbot
