PDA

View Full Version : Cherry-faced Meadowhawk Dragonfly



Craig Markham
08-16-2011, 08:59 PM
File Name 110810-105603-40D-3058 Striped Meadowhawk - Sympetrum pallipes.CR2 -- note: the thread name is incorrect (I couldn't edit it)
Shooting Date/Time 08/10/11 1056 AM

This dragonfly landed briefly on some Spirea blooms in front of the house while I was on the prowl for insect subjects.
Hand-held, uncropped
Leaf edge in LLC removed

Camera Model Canon EOS 40D
Lens EF100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
Focal Length 100.0mm
Shooting Mode Manual Exposure
Tv( Shutter Speed ) 1/320
Av( Aperture Value ) 16.0
ISO Speed 200
Metering Mode Partial Metering
Original Image Size 3888x2592
Image Quality RAW
Flash On
Flash Type External E-TTL
Flash Exposure Compensation 0
Shutter curtain sync Hi-speed
White Balance Mode Shade
AF Mode AI Servo AF
Picture Style Standard
Color Space sRGB

Bob Miller
08-17-2011, 05:49 PM
Craig....nice image! I would take just a bit off the bottom. Bg is a bit jumbled ....perhaps you can blend out some of the edges with some low opacity paint

John Storjohann
08-17-2011, 06:31 PM
Hi Craig;

Like Bob, I find the BG a bit distracting in this instance...but I like the foreground composition, the splash of color from the flowers, and the color of the dragon itself. Nice capture.

Steve Maxson
08-17-2011, 09:08 PM
Hi Craig. The dragonfly is giving you a nice pose on some colorful flowers. Good sharpness on the flowers and most of the dragonfly, and I like the comp - so you get high marks for the foreground. :S3: On the other hand, the background is distracting and detracting from from this very strong foreground. You might try selectively decreasing the saturation and brightness of the greens in the background. Blurring some of the edges a little more would also help. With some careful cloning you might also be able to remove the dead flower heads below the dragonfly. Your image is strong enough that I think it is worth the extra work and I hope to see more of your macro images. :S3:

Ken Childs
08-19-2011, 12:32 PM
Hi Craig, Steve already covered the critique so I can't add to that. As mentioned, the subject looks good so some extra editing work would be well worth the effort. If would take a lot of work but if you can mask out the subject and blur the BG, it would be a big improvement.

Keep 'em coming! I never get tired of dragonfly pics. :S3:

Craig Markham
08-19-2011, 02:54 PM
Thank you all for your suggestions. I had already done some of the things suggested in the image as posted, but didn't wish to overdo. Here's what I did:

1. Regarding cropping off some of the bottom, I wanted to keep the flower stem as-is, because I think that it serves well to anchor the image. Also I didn't want to crowd the focused leaf tip on the right.
2. On a duplicate layer in CS5, I blurred the BG and reduced noise in the shadows by applying NIK software's Dfine 2.0 in BG mode. I first blurred the entire layer by "Filling" it, then "Erased" the Dfine mask areas where I wanted the original layer to show through for max sharpness (i.e, the dragonfly, flower buds, wings and foreground leaves and stems).
3. I toned down overly highlighted stems and leaves in the BG and the old flower head below the dragonfly's abdomen with the Burn and Clone tools.
4. I cloned out a bright, in-focus leaf in the LLC.
5. I used NIK's Viveza 2 to increase the contrast of the red venation on the far wing.

Per your comment I created a duplicate layer, applied Gaussian blur, "Erased" the blur for areas I wanted to be max sharpness. The result seemed to dis-balance the image, and gave it a "lost in (dark) space" even when I reduced the opacity of the Gaussian layer. So at least for now, I guess I'll have to stick with the image as presented. My own main dissatisfaction with the image is that, as you all said, the BG is a bit of a tangle. Also I wish I could have captured more contrast in the wings. Dropping to a lower view angle to reduce the distracting BG element, probably would have helped. But the position of the dragonfly in the frame is about the way I wanted it -- that was entirely intentional.

Again, thank you for your suggestions. If you have further thoughts about the image, given my explanation, I'd welcome them.

Craig