Blue Damselflies

[JohnC]

Here are some Common Blue damselflies I took yesterday  with a  the Canon 70-200 f4 handheld. I'd like to  have taken these on the tripod ,also there was an annoying breeze blowing too so it was a case of a quick photo during a breeze lull. You're the macro/ insect man, John- be honest now,  lol..are they ok ? Any tips ? I' must try again with tripod and no breeze.

[JohnMurphy]

Wow, fabulous subject, I've never seen one of these in the wild.
Great shots for handheld, its very hard to get sharp macros when you DOF is so shallow and your focus point is moving. What focal length was the lens at?

[martinastro]

Fantastic stuff John. I don't think I have seen those since I was very young around the shores of Lough Neagh on Summer nights. I will be out looking for those now as well...another subject to add to the growing the list 

[JohnMurphy]

Check out this photo on flickr. Its not cropped much judjing the original pixel size. Don't know what kit he's using but its amazing.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kirby_ski/3598678595/sizes/l/in/pool-1079247@N21/

[John9929]

John thats a cracker image, it's like something from outer space

[jjb]

Very colorful John and nicely framed.

[JohnC]

Many thanks. Oh dear me, John (M). I didn't think they were up to scratch and deleted them Ugh. I used the 70-200 f4 . I'll ask my neighbour who took similar ones.

[jgs001]

John, They are all pretty good, it's really damn hard to get shots like these when the breeze is blowing as the close working distances magnify movement. What processing was done on them, have you sharpened them ? The insects all look slightly soft, that may be down to diffraction effects setting in with the lens at f16 (I only know what I can get away with using my lens, and don't know the capabilities of the lens you are using).

From the EXIF data the focal lengths reported are...

1) 280mm
2) 229mm
3) 118mm
4) 98mm

I'm not sure why 2 of those are reporting longer than the lens is... did you use a TC (although I've also no clue what FL the EXIF would report there).

[JohnC]

Thanks for that, John.(focal lengths). I did sharpen in  PS  Unsharp mask but there was a lively breeze and I think that's responsible for the soft appearance.  I'll have another go when we get a warm sunny day and no breeze and a tripod in tow.

The lens, Canon 70-200 f4 IS L series , is said to be the best for sharpness and I was also  told that by an Aussie paparazzi when I was in the US- he was on the tour with us. Review after review states that the quality of this L series lens is unsurpassed- Maybe they mean for that category- I mean what about the primes ?

Re.  the  280mm focal length for a 200mm lens. That's down to me, John. I didn't realise the extender was on it. I asked my neighbour what the focal length was -  and he said the 1.4 X extender was  on it. ..it was at 200mm plus that 1.4 X = 280mm. I don't know why I didn't think to take the photo into PS and look when John asked.

[jgs001]

Np John. Yeah, the breeze would cause that, as might the TC somewhat from what I've read. I'd like one of those lenses too... why does both Astronomy and Photography have to be so damned expensive 

As for the EXIF data, I've got a couple of firefox plugins, Fexif (I think) and Opanda, that allow me to view the EXIF embedded in jpg images on the web (if there is any), so I just right clicked your images and had a look.

[JohnC]

Those plug ins sound the biz. I'm always interested in the settings.  I'll google them and see where to go to get them. Why do some photos have exif data there and not others  ?..is it set to show in the camera or the software editing stage ? I expect some people don't want the exif data showing but I've seen profs. let viewers see the exif data, maybe people just don't think about it and a 'no show' is a default setting-dunno ?

[jgs001]

Sometimes flikr presents a resized version, and this for some reason doesn't include the EXIF... Also if you save for web, that strips it, as can the export settings on Lightroom or Aperture. I leave them embedded.