Critique of macro butterfly shot

[Lord Vetinari]

Appreciate critique on this macro shot of a butterfly with regard especially to composition.
Brian V.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/j.valentine/CRW_5758c.jpg

[Lord Vetinari]

45 views and no comments? Is it that bad?
I realise macros are a bit difficult to judge as half of the difficulty is just getting the shot in the first place, but ignoring that it is a macro does the pic have any virtues?
Brian V.

[XO-Studios]

Appreciate critique on this macro shot of a butterfly with regard especially to composition.
Brian V.
I have seen your macro's, in my book you are the KING of macro-photography, I simply feel not qualified other than to say WOW. WOW is not much of a critique ;)

XO,

[ian408]

Compositionally, this is a nice shot. The DOF is nice though looks like it's not
the entire insect. I think the insect is OE.

Good job!

Ian

[Lord Vetinari]

I have seen your macro's, in my book you are the KING of macro-photography, I simply feel not qualified other than to say WOW. WOW is not much of a critique ;)

XO,Thanks for the compliment but there are far better macrophotographers than me out there.
Brian V.

[Lord Vetinari]

Compositionally, this is a nice shot. The DOF is nice though looks like it's not
the entire insect. I think the insect is OE.

Good job!

IanThanks for the comments Ian.
You are right it's not the entire subject (no I didn't crop it) I was actually after the hairy eyes and the coiled proboscis' but thought that structurally the image was nice ignoring that it was a butterfly.
Ah worked it out OE=overexposed?
Brian V.

[gus]

I cant comment as i recon its tops...buuut...i have woken up with eyes like that.

[rahmonster]

I really like the way you have composed this as though you are taking a portrait of him. I find sometimes macros can look a bit..."scientific" or something. I don't mind that I'm not seeing the whole butterfly, or that he may be just a little over exposed because I fel as though I'm looking at a portrait not a macro. I think this is an excellent shot, as yours always are:D

[Lord Vetinari]

I cant comment as i recon its tops...buuut...i have woken up with eyes like that.You must have had a lot to drink the night before-:rofl
Brian V.

[Lord Vetinari]

I really like the way you have composed this as though you are taking a portrait of him. I find sometimes macros can look a bit..."scientific" or something. I don't mind that I'm not seeing the whole butterfly, or that he may be just a little over exposed because I fel as though I'm looking at a portrait not a macro. I think this is an excellent shot, as yours always are:DThanks rahmonster, That's sort of what I was trying to do.
Brian v.

[Andy]

45 views and no comments? Is it that bad?
I realise macros are a bit difficult to judge as half of the difficulty is just getting the shot in the first place, but ignoring that it is a macro does the pic have any virtues?
Brian V.

brian - be patient. - not everyone on dgrin feels qualified to make any critique, let alone a macro critique. this isn't the forum for "nice shot" "ooh ahhh" so you'll get lots of views and fewer critiques.

[Lord Vetinari]

brian - be patient. - not everyone on dgrin feels qualified to make any critique, let alone a macro critique. this isn't the forum for "nice shot" "ooh ahhh" so you'll get lots of views and fewer critiques.Apologies Andy- guess I'm used to the other site I post on where if you do not get any reply in the first 6 hours the post dissappears down a black hole never to be heard of again.:):
Brian V.

[pathfinder]

Apologies Andy- guess I'm used to the other site I post on where if you do not get any reply in the first 6 hours the post dissappears down a black hole never to be heard of again.:):
Brian V.

Yes, LV, threads of good images tend to last longer here than on FM. Usually . And sometimes they take a little while to get going, I know how fast they can sink into a dark hole on FM. I am also reluctant to comment because the quality of your work is so high. However since you asked...:D

The depth of field is so extremely shallow at this close an image that I think the eye is not really sharp. The hairs on the front of the thorax are very sharp and maybe slightly overexposed. I wish the eye were more sharp and I could see the pupil like spot in the insects right eye ( viewer's left).
These comments are not meant as criticism as I have a good idea of the challenges involved in this kind of shooting and the greatest respect for what you have achieved. But these are the two things that I think could have made this shot even better. :thumb
Is this kind of commentary helpful? The portrait like view of this insect is well done and I admire your work.

[Lord Vetinari]

Thanks Pathfinder- yes they are the sort of comments I was looking for.

Brian V.

[tmlphoto]

Brian, I really like this shot. The "portrait" is very nice and I think this shot works not only as a macro, but has aesthetic value as well. The colors are very complimentary & the OOF background is very silky smooth. The "pose" is proud and the lighting is very nice. Overall a very nice piece of work. My only nit picking would be to decrease the highlights just a tad, and as Pathfinder said the left eye could be a tad sharper, but these are really pixel picking.

[Lord Vetinari]

Brian, I really like this shot. The "portrait" is very nice and I think this shot works not only as a macro, but has aesthetic value as well. The colors are very complimentary & the OOF background is very silky smooth. The "pose" is proud and the lighting is very nice. Overall a very nice piece of work. My only nit picking would be to decrease the highlights just a tad, and as Pathfinder said the left eye could be a tad sharper, but these are really pixel picking.Thanks for the comments Thomas, having learnt I think the technical side of macros, I'm trying to work a bit more on the aesthetic side of them. Almost trying to see if you can get the same range of photo types (ie landscapes, portraits, action and candids etc) in macro shots as you get in "normal" photography. Still need to do some work on lighting though.
Brian V.

[Higgmeister]

I definitely a fan of your macros; just wanted to start this way.

First, I think the DOF is good for such magnification. The foreground is in focus and though the right (it's left) eye looks OF, it believe it's in focus. Technically, I think this is a superb job with a tough subject. I don't have a problem with the exposure as I like the high contrast. It helps separate the subject from the background.

Pathfinder mentioned a bug portrait, but I've yet to connect emotionally to a bug. Your composition would work for a portrait if that is what it is. So what is it about macros that are so fascinating to some of us (you know who you are:D). For me, it's the view into an alien world. This butterfly definitely looks alien to me and could be in a horror movie. The problem here is that I wouldn't have identified it as a butterfly right off without your comment. So, does this matter? A little I think; taking an everyday object and bringing to light another view that is so different.

Detail and texture are very important in a Macro. You do well with this in all your macros, including this one. In this one, the dead space doesn't do a whole lot for me, it's mundane without much change. The colors are pleasing and don't pull all the attention as some others do (dragon shots) so my eye's stay with the subject.

As for macro eyes, why the importance? I understand it in a human portrait because it's one of the ways we communicate, but for bugs? I think it's because bug eyes are so detailed and are easily recognized as facial features. It's something we gravitate to. This is definitely an interesting perspective for a butterfly and I like it. It's not relying on color to grab you.

For traditional composition, I don't think its all that good, but we don't have a traditional subject here. The only thing I might do would crop off some of the dead space, but not too tightly. Let the background show some depth without being so large; guess I'm trying to say to make it more subtle.

Overall, I think it's a very good macro. You've captured good detail in the hairs and also the texture in the wing. I don't connect on an emotional level, but I do connect on the inquisitive level. It's fascinating:thumb.

I kinda went a little too deep and generalized on macros, but I wanted to let you know where I was coming from. I've seen other macros that drew my attention more, but that was usually caused by some secondary subjects and lighting. Color doesn't play as big a part in this shot as it does with many others; that isn't a bad thing.

It's a cool shot and gets a :thumb from me.

Chris

[arden]

45 views and no comments? Is it that bad?
I realise macros are a bit difficult to judge as half of the difficulty is just getting the shot in the first place, but ignoring that it is a macro does the pic have any virtues?
Brian V.

macro shoots give great detail of the universe and great example of yours.

[Skippy]

Appreciate critique on this macro shot of a butterfly with regard especially to composition.
Brian V.



Ummmmmmm Brian .... I don't think you know how to take a bad shot do you??? :rofl good heavens man, most people would give their eye teeth to be even half as good at doing Macro as you are............ Skippy :D

[fotodojo]

Thanks for the compliment but there are far better macrophotographers than me out there.
Brian V.

I'd like to meet him/her. Where do I get the DeLorean to get to that meeting place ?

I feel dirty even typing this: If anything compared to your other shots this one is not as good. I am not sure wether it's in the balance (right heavy) or the "smoothness" of the shot. Perhaps the lighting is a tad harsh, perhaps the post work was odd ?