Ambush bug

[Karl Günter Wünsch]

http://www.my-photohome.de/kgw/2010-06-12-phymata-crassipes_0011_ns.jpg
Phymata crassipes (ambush bug) on an Aceras anthropophorum (Man orchid), Halsberg (hill) near Gilsdorf, Eifel area, Germany, Canon 7D, 100mm f/2.8L IS USM @1:1 + 12mm extension tube + 1.4x Extender II @ f/13, 1/8, tripod, reflector, crop to 75% of original frame...

[Julie Kenward]

Karl, that is one very interesting insect! It looks almost prehistoric...

I feel like the image is a little busy overall - I don't mind the environmental factors but the area in the Upper Right Corner (URC) and the lighter colors of the orchid are a bit distracting from really showing off this very unique looking creature. I selected the bug, inversed the selection and then painted over the bits and pieces in the URC to try to calm the distractions down a bit. I also darkened the whiter areas of the flowers a bit so they weren't quite so competitive with the darker colors of the bug.

I think for the most part you did very well in choosing an aperture here although the bug does lose a bit of sharpness towards the bottom. If time allows, always try some different angles (very slight shifts in this case) to get that entire insect into the focal plane of the lens and then choose the best one in post-processing (pp).

Here's my revised image just to give you a few things to think about.

[Karl Günter Wünsch]

I think for the most part you did very well in choosing an aperture here although the bug does lose a bit of sharpness towards the bottom.
Which is basically unavoidable on an ambush bug from the side (most interesting perspective) as you can either choose the head and "shoulder" to be in focus or the head and the lower body - the head and shoulder area are quite narrow while the main body is flat and quite wide in comparison... As for the editing you presented, I am not so easily swayed to clone out whole flowers in the background, as the camouflage of the animal IMHO is one of the things that make them so interesting to me and that is lost in front of a cleaned background. The only thing I'd be willing to clone out would probably be the single lip from a flower bud above the head...

[Julie Kenward]

As for the editing you presented, I am not so easily swayed to clone out whole flowers in the background, as the camouflage of the animal IMHO is one of the things that make them so interesting to me and that is lost in front of a cleaned background.

And that's perfectly fine - I just wanted to present another view.

[Ken Childs]

It's a cool bug but it would look better if more of it was in focus. With the setup you used, you probably could have gone with a smaller aperture to get more DOF, even at this angle. If you get another chance, try F22 or even smaller.

I prefer Jules' edit because that flower behind the bug is distracting and since the bug is a completely different color, it really doesn't seem to work as camouflage anyway.

[Allen Sparks]

Nice detail in the original shot of the head and thorax. I like Julie's repost better as I think it does take out distracting elements while keeping true to the habitat.

[Karl Günter Wünsch]

It's a cool bug but it would look better if more of it was in focus. With the setup you used, you probably could have gone with a smaller aperture to get more DOF, even at this angle. If you get another chance, try F22 or even smaller.
I tried and it doesn't work out, the effects of diffraction are too strong. Remember that the f/13 on Canon are the nominal aperture while for a Nikon shooter my setup at f/13 would have worked out to about f/30 (in terms of effective aperture as reported in that system) already with the short extension tube and the internal extension of the macro lens...

[Ken Childs]

I tried and it doesn't work out, the effects of diffraction are too strong. Remember that the f/13 on Canon are the nominal aperture while for a Nikon shooter my setup at f/13 would have worked out to about f/30 (in terms of effective aperture as reported in that system) already with the short extension tube and the internal extension of the macro lens...
I don't know anything about Nikon cameras so I'll take your word for it. :)

[Jackie Schuknecht]

I like the repost by Jules, but it is so hard to get all elements in a shot working well. If nothing else I might take out the two bud tips at the top.

[Karl Günter Wünsch]

I don't know anything about Nikon cameras so I'll take your word for it. :)
Sorry to assume that you were a Nikon shooter (the premise behind my last post) because usually those are the ones suggesting stopping down excessively but forgetting that to get the same shot at 1:1 on Canon and Nikon you have to use different aperture settings in those two systems.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Karl,
Must say that I too find Jules repost a bit better but also feel it could have used a hair more dof or better angle. You didn't mention what ISO you were at with the 7D???......that my help give us a few more options for you to try out.

[Karl Günter Wünsch]

Hey Karl,
Must say that I too find Jules repost a bit better but also feel it could have used a hair more dof or better angle.
You must be joking. I already explained that more DOF isn't possible on this shot as f/13 is already beyond the diffraction limit at the shown magnification of about 2:1 and a better angle does not exist as the back side of the insect fans out considerably compared to the thorax.

[Ken Childs]

Karl, I'm still not sure what you mean by "f13 is beyond the diffraction limit". The DLA on a 7D starts at f6.8 but the extra detail captured by it's 18 megapixels should help compensate for the loss of sharpness at smaller apertures. The DLA on my camera starts at f7.6 but I routinely shoot f22 without much loss because it captures 15.1 megapixels.

Just how big is this bug?

[Roman Kurywczak]

.....and where are you getting your info on the diffraction? I shoot with the Mark lll and the 1.4 and tube all the time at f32.......so where exactly is this info coming from?