[Odonata-l] more on digital photography of odes

[Greg Lasley]

Hello Again,

After my post a few days ago concerning my views on digital ode 
photography I have received a number of off-list replies and questions. 
  I thought I would post some of my responses and clarifications to 
various things I was asked in the event others are interested.  If you 
have no interest in digital ode photography…delete this now. To begin 
with I was asked about tripod use and I certainly realize that many 
people do not wish to go to this trouble…something I certainly 
understand.  Speaking solely from a photography standpoint, I will 
state that I also hated to use a tripod and almost never did until 
about 10 or 12 years ago.  Strictly photographically, my images 
improved by leaps and bounds when using a tripod, and thus, though 
perhaps an “old school” view, I continue to use one.  One of my goals 
with photos of odes is the potential for some later publication of the 
images, and I think tripod use is important…at least for me. For simply 
documenting a record or some other uses a tripod is certainly not 
necessary. I still maintain, however, that use of a tripod is the 
single most important thing to do to improve the quality of your 
photos…personal opinion, so please don’t take me to task too strongly 
over that opinion.

I was also asked about the use of a 2X extender as opposed to a 
1.4X…the writer being of the view that the 2X was not very good while 
the 1.4X was acceptable.  I think that any time you put anything such 
as an extender between the lens and the camera you lose some quality. 
It is also pretty clear that a 1.4 X will be better than a 2X in image 
quality. From my own experience this is especially true of less 
expensive, off-brand extenders.  That being said, however, the very 
best quality extenders, such as the Canon EOS 1.4X and 2X certainly 
minimize these problems. If you are using a high-quality Canon L series 
lens and match it with an equally high quality Canon 2X extender, you 
can achieve great results.  I have had many, many published wildlife 
photos using a 2X on a 500 mm F/4 lens...several of which have been on 
magazine and book covers. Would a 1.4X be better...sure, but I find it 
hard to detect the difference on many occasions, and of course you lose 
the magnification of the 2X.  I have used a 2X with excellent results 
for many years.  I think they keys to doing this are the original lens 
quality and the quality of the 2X extender itself.  One must also keep 
in mind that a 2X adds two stops to a lens, thus an F/2.8 lens becomes 
a 5.6 and so on. You could not, for example, use a 2X on an F4 lens 
with the Canon D60 or 10D since those cameras will only auto focus at 
5.6. (But you can use it on an F/4 lens if you are willing to manually 
focus).

It was also asked if I did not think that the 70-200 mm lens I 
recommended was not “too big”, perhaps so much so as to frighten an 
ode…by the size of the lens.  I replied: As far as the longer lens I 
mentioned being much bigger...I suppose my own opinions are at least 
partially shaped by years of lugging around a 500 F4 or a 600 F4 lens 
for bird photography.  The 600 weighs 13 pounds.  The Canon 300 F4 and 
the 70-200 F/2.8, while larger than a normal lens, are really kind of 
small to me...which I love.  But, from the perspective of using a small 
50 or 100 Macro, yes they are larger.  As far as the lens being 
responsible for spooking an ode...I personally think it is the larger 
mass of the person's body and any sudden movements that are responsible 
for this.  Being careful with tripod legs is a must as well.  Anyway, 
just my own thoughts and experiences.

Finally, I was asked about my own methods of shooting ode photos to 
which I replied:  95% of my digital shooting is at 400 ISO.  I used to 
use Fuji Velvia, so having the ability to shoot at such a high ISO is 
incredible for me.  I am of the opinion that 400 ISO on digital is 
pretty much equal or better than the grain or "noise" (as they say in 
the digital world) results at 80 or 100 ASA with film.  This gives you 
a great deal of latitude with your shots.  Pretty much all the ode 
shots of mine on my web page (greglasley.net/dragonix.html) are at 400 
ISO. I occasionally shoot at 200 ISO, but the results at 400 are so 
good that I rarely bother to drop back to 200.  Lots of digital 
“converts” still have a film mindset and shoot their digital images at 
100 or at the most 200 ISO.  They are missing, in my opinion, one of 
the major advantages of digital photography...the ability to get 
excellent results at 400 ISO.  Even 800 ISO is not normally 
objectionable and on occasion I have used 1600 ISO on some bird shots 
in dark conditions.  The Prothonotary Warbler shots at:
http://www.greglasley.net/prothowarb.html
are at 1600 ISO.  I can make nice 11X17 prints from the tiff files.

With birds I shoot without a flash normally and in an aperture priority 
mode.  With odes I shoot on manual for shutter speed and aperture, but 
let the flash work TTL. Since I do not have to worry about bad eye 
reflection as is the problem with birds, I simply use the 550 Canon EX 
flash mounted on the camera hot shoe. When I did a little insect stuff 
with film I ended up much of the time with the bug well illuminated, 
but all the background black.  Some folks liked that effect...I did 
not.  Obviously, the flash was not able to illuminate all the 
background to render any color and the ambient light was insufficient 
to help out much at the slow ASA speed of fine grain film.  I tried to 
give myself a lot of depth of field, so I was shooting at about 1/90 or 
1/100 of a second at F/18 or F/20, etc.  Digital has solved a bunch of 
these problems because in general you get more latitude in the shot 
with a digital image, but especially because shooting at 400 ISO allows 
ambient light (and the flash) to bring out more of the background than 
was ever possible with 50 or 80 speed film.

Most of my ode shots are at a shutter speed between 1/90 and 1/160 of a 
second and with an aperture of F/16 to F/20.  Basically, I take a look 
at a bug with the camera in aperture priority mode and get an idea of 
what the camera would want to shoot at say 1/125 of a second.  If it 
would take the shot at 1/125 at F/14 for example, I may leave it at 
1/125 second (using manual now…not aperture priority), but bump the 
aperture to F/18 or so...in this way I want to use the flash to take 
out some shadows and make sure that the flash has some work to do, but 
I do not overpower the scene with the flash. My methods are not 
sophisticated...but I get the results I am looking for.  Often I may 
just work at 1/125 second and F/18 or F/20 as a default setting and let 
the flash take care of what extra light is needed to achieve a decent 
image. Occasionally it will get very bright outside and I was not 
paying attention and I realize that my manual settings are forcing an 
over-exposure of my shots and need to be adjusted...this is why it is 
great to watch the digital image (the graph especially) pop up after 
each shot...or series of shots...to keep checking your exposure.

Shooting digitally you will need to realize that you need to adjust the 
saturation and contrast on most all your shots if you intend to print 
them or put them on a web site.  The stock "Adobe RGB 1998" or "sRGB" 
settings that the camera shoots in leaves things a little flat looking. 
  It takes practice, but once you get the hang of it it is no big deal.)

Sorry this is long...I'll shut up now.



Sincerely,

Greg Lasley
http://www.greglasley.net
Greg Lasley Nature Photography
305 Loganberry Ct.
Austin, Texas 78745-6527