Lighting fun with butterflies

[Randy Stout]

Another one from Meijer's Gardens in Grand Rapids. Working hard to learn a bit more sophisticated lighting set ups.
This one had natural light, strong, from up and left (see shadow through the leaf). Two flashes, both with diffusers, one on camera as master, remote on Wimberley AM-4 macro bracket, on left of lens, level with midline of lens. Trying to blend natural and fill light in as unobtrusive of manner as possible.

D700 sigma 180 @ f/14 1/500s ISO 500 Handheld (no support allowed at venue)

Post: CS4 PS, curves, selective sharpening. Full frame.


DOF field isn't adequate, but I was juggling a number of factors here, and made this compromise.

I like the shapes of the wings and the perch. Wish the perch didn't have the pronounced green spots.

Advice always appreciated.

Cheers

Randy

[Julie Kenward]

Randy, I rarely use flash and the set up you're describing is way beyond anything I've attempted so it's hard for me to comment on that other than to say bravo for trying it! I opened your image in PS and saw that there was very little data on the highlight end of the histogram and I wondered about that because the image felt a tad bit dark to me. One of the things I look for in the BG of images is the dark almost black streaks - they almost always print like crap - so I personally try to go with a lighter touch when shooting and then pull the midtones down (or use multiply mode to really bring them down) instead of starting on the dark side in the first place. The BG certainly isn't bad but I wonder what you'd think of it if you went to print it...

You're right - you could use a little more DOF here as the bottom of the front wing is even a bit OOF and that's really surprising for the aperture you chose. I would bet you could recapture that with some additional sharpening, though as it's barely noticeable. I don't mind the back wing being OOF - that feels pretty natural and expected for the angle of the butterfly.

I know how hard it is to shoot under these confined circumstances and I think you did a good job - the lighting certainly does not look manufactured or "flashed" and that says quite a bit about your set up. I love the details of the butterfly - wonderful positioning so we get eye contact and get to see the body/feet/tongue.

[Randy Stout]

Thanks Julie for your detailed thoughts. I agree the image could go brighter. I really didn't want it to look over flashed, so left it a bit darker.

The challenge with multiple flashes plus daylight is to balance the various light sources. I was madly cranking in different compensations for each flash as the conditions/species of butterfly, changed. Great fun!

Cheers

Randy

[Ken Childs]

The comp and lighting look great. Maybe it's a bit dark but that doesn't bother me at all. Other than what's already been mentioned, the negatives IMHO are the cut-off legs and the one antenna that runs parallel to the back wing. That antenna feels like it should be further separated from the wing.

[Randy Stout]

Ken:

good points. I would have preferred to get a bit higher, but the venue doesn't allow standing on rocks or bringing in a step ladder:D. Have you learned any tricks for getting butterflies to move their antenna around? Just kidding of course, but it would be nice to get them to swivel them to an alternative position at times.

Cheers

Randy

[Ken Childs]

Have you learned any tricks for getting butterflies to move their antenna around?

Believe me, I've given many directions to butterflies but so far no success. Usually they just get mad and leave. :D

[Markus Jais]

Great shot with wonderful light. You did a great job with your set-up. I like the composition and the colors.
Excellent sharpness.

Markus

[Mike Moats]

Hey Randy,very cool head shot. Like the color and light.:)

[Vida van der Walt]

Randy, I think this is beautiful. You did a great job with the lighting and although the feet, antennae are not 100 % perfect, this shot has so many strong points that they do not bother me at all. I love the angle, comp and detail.:)

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Randy,
I'll offer you a few things that I hope will help you out. First....even with the heavy set-up (I hand hold the Mark lll with the 180macro and the twin lights).....you have to realize that it is the flash is what freezes movement...not SS (on static subjects). I did my recent water drop images with 2 flashes at 1/32 power....close to subject....the flash froze the motion. Distance to subject, BG, all play a role in the lighting. I recommend f22 and 1/100 sec as a starting point for macro.....why....fast enough SS to freeze most motion with flash and given your ISO......should add enough ambient light. Drop the SS from your 1/500...even going up to f22...makes for 1/200 sec......2/3 stops more ambient light. You can then minus comp flashes or even drop to 1/60......it's pretty amazing what flash will freeze! Just some food for thought and some things to play around with on your next trip out.

[Randy Stout]

Roman:

Thanks for the input. I was using shutter speeds from 1/60 to 1/500 as I "dragged the shutter" to vary the background illumination. Agree about the flash potentially will do the freezing of the subject, if it is used a the main light, but in many of the images that day, I wanted to keep a significant input from the ambient light to avoid the 'flashed look'. This image was partially backlit, and I was concerned that I might get a flash blur effect with a sharp image from the flash and a ghost image from the ambient light(if my shutter speed was too slow)

This guy was moving around on the leaf a bit too.

But that of course is the fun, lots of options to try to get just the look you are after.

At what point do you start worrying about diffraction degrading the image with 180? I traditionally try to avoid the really small apertures for that reason, plus I want more control over the background. I am not able to move or adjust the shot because of venue restrictions, so am juggling a bunch of factors.

Thanks again.

Randy

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Randy,
I would say that I am at 1/125 sec most of the time and I almost always am at f22 or higher! If you look at my previous macro posts many are at f32......and I am very happy with the sharpness. I do know Mike Moats also ventures ther alot!
I will tell you this.....I spend more time concentrating on BG's.....than actually taking the picture! In places that you mention...where control is limited.....I spend almost all my time concentrating on subjects that will land in an aarea with a BG that I like.....far enough away from subject to not be ditracting yet close enough to make a pleasant BG......lots to think about but I find that getting the BG situation taken care of first......makes actually photographing the subject a bit easier. Another thing to keep in mind is that when they are colder....they are less active....makes life that much easier!