How Does Macro and Micro Photography Enhance Our Understanding of Butterflies?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andy Resnick
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Photography
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the enhancement of understanding butterflies and other insects through macro and micro photography. Participants share their experiences with different photographic techniques, equipment, and the biological implications of their subjects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes their experience with macro photography, highlighting the challenges of achieving stability and depth of focus at high magnifications.
  • Another participant suggests using depth of field enhancing techniques, particularly for macro photography, and shares links to resources on this topic.
  • A third participant mentions using a deconvolution program for image processing, indicating a potential comparison with other software for enhancing depth of field.
  • Several participants share images of insects, including a Japanese beetle infested with a parasitic fly, discussing the biological interactions observed through photography.
  • There is a light-hearted exchange regarding the nature of insect photography, with references to "photojournalism" and "bug porn," indicating differing attitudes toward the subject matter.
  • Participants share additional images of insects, such as bumble bees and hornets, contributing to the exploration of insect behavior and ecology.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a variety of techniques and experiences in macro photography, but there is no consensus on the best methods or approaches. The discussion includes both technical challenges and biological observations, with differing opinions on the aesthetic and ethical aspects of insect photography.

Contextual Notes

Some participants mention the need for static subjects in macro photography to achieve desired results, indicating limitations in capturing dynamic scenes. There are also references to unresolved technical aspects related to depth of field enhancement and image processing techniques.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in macro photography, entomology, and the biological interactions of insects may find this discussion valuable.

Andy Resnick
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
7,750
Reaction score
3,988
The "butterflies" thread has inspired me to get my act together and take some proper images. I spent a couple hours (!) last night trying to take a picture of a flower, but at the magnifications I am working at, I need the optomechanical equipment in my lab to keep everything stable. To see why, here's the flower:

http://a.imageshack.us/img686/2918/dsc00403t.jpg

It looks ok, but that's my limit. Here's a 100% crop of the same flower, using the 16mm Luminar:

http://a.imageshack.us/img153/2244/16flower.jpg

I got lucky with this shot- notice the miniscule depth of focus.

So today, I set up everything on some rail and took images of a 1/32" ball bearing sitting on some foam. I illuminated it with a LumenPro metal halide source coupled into a liquid light guide- no diffuser. The light is so bright the glint off the bearing was enough to blind me. Here it is with the 63mm, stopped down most of the way:

http://a.imageshack.us/img266/6576/dsc00468xc.jpg

And here it is wide open, followed by a 100% crop-
http://a.imageshack.us/img266/2705/dsc00461i.jpg

http://a.imageshack.us/img294/1764/63mmball.jpg

The detail is quite good, and there is little chromatic aberration- dig the bokeh!

Now stepping up the the 25mm: again, full frame and a 100% crop

http://a.imageshack.us/img840/4047/dsc00465e.jpg

http://a.imageshack.us/img294/5230/25mmball.jpg

Again, the image is quite sharp, but the depth of focus is so small that the detail appears out of focus.

Now the 16mm:

http://a.imageshack.us/img294/6281/dsc00470eo.jpg

http://a.imageshack.us/img840/1953/16mmball.png

This is where things get interesting- the depth of focus is negligible, and what you are seeing in the crop is not blur, but speckle. The magnification and sharpness of this lens is sufficient to resolve speckle from an extended, broadband source.

Just for fun, I stuck on a 16x epiplan objective and took an image of one of the plastic foam flecks. The full-frame image is rather dull, but the 100% crop shows an interesting optical effect: diffraction off the sharp edge and interference:

http://a.imageshack.us/img251/2343/16xfoam.jpg

The colors are real, not chromatic aberration. I suspect they are interference fringes caused by a varying thickness of the 'flake'. The diffraction off the edge is pretty cool, too (IMO)- I count 7 periods.

Something I find interesting in this sequence, is that there is a definite change around 10X magnification- the images change from being recognizable (but magnified), to unfamiliar and confusing. Hopefully there's enough time left in the summer to explore this a little more...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Biology news on Phys.org
Andy Resnick said:
... notice the miniscule depth of focus...

To solve that issue, maybe notice this post in the photomanipulation thread:

Andre said:
Another trick I stumbled upon is depth of field enhancing. Especially when shooting macro the very shallow depth of field can be embarrashing like this:


2rp6yab.jpg


Body crisp, wings blurry.

The Depth of Field enhancing works with multiple pictures too, focussed in different planes also merged together. Obviously taking multiple pix requires an absolute static situation, so you'd have to work with static objects too e.g. dead insects. Not my style.

Anyway I found some info and programs for that, maybe I give it a try:

http://www.microscopy-analysis.com/files/jwiley_microscopy/2008_May_Piper.pdf
http://www.janrik.net/ptools/ExtendedFocusPano12/index.html
http://www.saphicon.com/extended-depth-field.htm
http://hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZM/News.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've heard of those programs, but haven't tried them.

I use a deconvolution program (an ImageJ plugin), and from what I can tell, the concept is the same. I should compare it to, say, Combine ZP..

Thanks!
 
Here's a Panasonic pocket-cam pic of a Japanese beetle. See the raised white dot on the carapace? This beetle is a goner. That's the egg of a parasitic fly, and in a couple of days the wonderful little maggot will burrow into the beetle and start eating it alive. The beetle will drop to the ground and dig into try to get away from the attack, giving the maggot a nice safe place to eat and mature.
JapanesePar.jpg
 
turbo-1 said:
Here's a Panasonic pocket-cam pic of a Japanese beetle. See the raised white dot on the carapace? This beetle is a goner. That's the egg of a parasitic fly, and in a couple of days the wonderful little maggot will burrow into the beetle and start eating it alive. The beetle will drop to the ground and dig into try to get away from the attack, giving the maggot a nice safe place to eat and mature.

Heh... I guess that makes you a photo*journalist*. Prime directive and all that...
 
Andy Resnick said:
Heh... I guess that makes you a photo*journalist*. Prime directive and all that...
Well, at least I don't deal in "bug porn" like Pooh does. :devil:
 
Would that bug you? :biggrin:

20z1nh5.jpg
 
:smile::smile:
 
Talking about bugs, I was cleaning out my bug folder and came across some nice ones that I had not shared before.

Hovering bumble bee visits fuchsia.

256afs9.jpg


more to follow
 
  • #10
Hornet, busy with 'harvesting' wood for her nest

vi1mq8.jpg



Aphids on a rosebud

2nib4b8.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • #11
All animals eat. Damselflies eat other flies.

2uepw9e.jpg