Stills

Stitched manually. I did quite a bit of this last year for some crazy reason -- it can be very tedious work. But I liked the results and couldn't find another way to get them. I've also tried that imagin combining software, but it seems you need a completely still (which I'd say means dead) subject to get good results. Even when they look still, I"ve found that most insects are always moving a bit.

I have quite a few insect photos, so you may see another one in here eventually -- I don't think I have any dog photos, how do you feel about cats? ;-)
 

Cats???????????

Are they the things that use my garden as a toilet and kill the song birds I feed in my garden?

I think they are..................

Hate 'em.

Understand aboiut the software, it is obviously designed for dead things under the microscope!!!
 

I guessed as much -- thanks for the smile -- I needed it. My personal hate at this moment is computers. Particularly a new, expensive one that is randomly crashing.
 

I currently love my PC. I did hate it when I tried to set up a WiFi network and tried to transfer data from my old computer to the new one. If at some time you fancy an hours story about me succeeding in getting a microsoft engineer in India to phone a netgear engineer in India in order to come to a three way conclusion on a problem that was into its second day of calls, let me know!

If I didn't have such a large investment in PC software I'd buy a Mac, much better.

Glad to have made you smile.
 

All that in a grain of rice?! Looks as though it means business. This level of macro photography I find illuminating in that one learns about objects that one doesn't normally acknowledge let alone see. I certainly had never heard of a Katydid, just think about carrying equivalent length antennae on top of our heads!. Apart from all the technology and patience there is a rather nice looking picture here with some lovely colour. Fascinating and beautiful. Pity about the watermark but I understand that this sort of shot is more attractive to hijackers than others
 

I was interested that you put your name on the image but not in the image.

Within the jpeg you can put data such as copyright, authors name etc. I had a look but found that you had not done that. i then looked for a digimarc in PS and found none.

I agree with John that your images are potentially commercial and therefore susceptible to being copied. I have communicated with photographers who have had their images 'ripped off' and therefore understand the risks. Are you sure that the visible mark is sufficient?
 

Thanks John and Rex. I'm quite encouraged by the reception you've given this image. I wasn't sure how it would go over in this group!

I started added a watermark to my images when I began posting them online at the advice of other photographers. I try to make it fairly inconspicuous because it annoys me, too!

I do often use metadata info in my files, but "Save for Web" strips it all out to make the file smaller for posting. Haven't really looked into the digimarc option. I'm told that if I really want to protect my images, I should register my copyrights here in the US (which means if they were stolen I'd be able to collect for damages), but I haven't spent the effort and $$ to do that so far. I have it on my long list of "thing to do" if I ever get around to it. I'm not a pro, and I don't want to take the fun out of shooting by being paranoid, though I understand there is a bit of real risk there.

How do you handle this matter with your own photos?
 

Back to the katydid -- as adults they reach the size of a grasshopper (obviously related) and develop wings as well -- most types stay completely green and are hard to see unless they jump or fly because they look like leaves. This one was newly hatched I'd guess, without even evident wing buds.

By the way, Rex -- I have a Mac. I do think they are better, --so far today no crashes, so I like it again.
 

Copyright.

I don't worry too much. I don't think my images are very commercial. I tend to keep the original file name and where I enter digital comps and have to give it a structured file name I then embed the origianl file name and while I am at it I fill in all the copyright data. I guess if it happened to me once I'd feel it a compliment but after that get a bit upset!!!
 

I can't even get HDR stitching to work automatically. Scottish clouds move too fast and the same one appears multiple times in any stitch.

I adore this picture because it works on so many levels. Pictorially the colours are perfect and the shapes work in harmony. Illustratively (is that a word?) it works because of the clarity of detail in the creature. And artistically it works as a reminder that there is a picture under every leaf.

And it doesn't even look like it bites humans :-)
 

This shot must have taken the patience of a zen master. The details in the leaf are gorgeous.

As to the issue of watermarks, metadata and image theft, I marked my images for a while after a few were lifted, but I gave up on it since they were being in used in countries were US copyright laws don't apply, and I didn't really care enough to pursue the issue anyway.

It's my understanding that you do not need to register the copyright on you photographs or even state that the work is copyrighted. However, registering the copyright only costs $45 and the price of your contact sheets.

http://www.copyright.gov/register/visual.html
 

My photos are not worth anything to me so if someone ever wanted to use one then they are most welcome! But I would expect the courtesy of being asked - just a question of manners but then commerce can quite often get in the way of such niceties.
 

I have not had a chance to really sit down and go through your website yet (apologies for that). However, the couple of times I have been looking I always stopped at this shot. It really does leap out at you.

Whilst the subject is very well posed there is so much potential energy in its cocked position that I can easily belive that a thousandth of a second later the shot was lost. The green hues of the leaf and nymph compliment very well with the dreamy background. Excellent choice of cropping aspect.

This is more than just a scientific portrait - which is all so many wildlife pictures seem to capture. You have caught your subject in it's enviroment with perfect timing.
 

Guy -- you said " can easily belive that a thousandth of a second later the shot was lost"

You are basically correct -- this was the last pose I got before it leaped into space and I could not find it again.