Monday, July 09, 2007
Rhogogaster Viridis (probably)
Comments:
Two quick points:
- this was done in-camera. Only a little contrast added later.
- it would be easy enough to clone out the little blue intrustion top right. I couldn't decide whether to do this or not, so left it.
The blue really helps with bringing you back to the "bug" and has an odd orientation with the both the top and side views. I think that this image falls into the "suggesting a bug" catagory with its graphic qualities.
It's rather fascinating how the shadow underneath the fly has impinged on the blue and caused ripples in the colour (at least it has on my monitor). I am uneasy about the colour combination that is the filling in the blue sandwich: it is bringing back some dim, distant memory that I can't pin down - probably something to do with '50s illustrations. Further intrigue is provided by the fact that the, seeming, ray of light does not in fact light up the fly but leaves it in near silhouette; just a hint of reflection from the top of its wings existing in the shadow.
Hints of Cronenburg.
I'm strugglling with this one and suspect that my own insect photos are influencing my feelings about it.
The silhouetted head is very interesting, in both the top and reflected view, but the blurred hind section bothers me, and the background colors are somewhat disturbing. One case in which I might rather see a black and white!
I think the latin title invites it to be viewed as a nature picture and as such it doesn't work for me. Too much out of focus and too much blocked in.
Rex,
Well the title was deliberate - following akikana's recent photos. Does the existence of the title influence this picture that much?
Maybe I should have taken the )probably) as undoing the formality of the latin. It is my club background that the 'nature' group has a strict set of rules and one of those rules is the latin title. The latin defines it as a 'nature' picture and with that come the rules.
I tried to write a 'However' sentence but struggled. I am still struggling.
There is a lot of components to like here but as a package it falls just a little short. Not sure why I feel that way given those components. If forced to find the reason I'd hazard the bug's wings. After that the slightly off kilter shadow/reflection jars a little. Apart from those two everything else lines up well. The back of the reflected bug parallel to the slope of the light shaft is particularly pleasing.
"If forced to find the reason I'd hazard the bug's wings. After that the slightly off kilter shadow/reflection jars a little."
I'd agree with this, but ad that its the smudginess of the wing and other fine detail in the shadow that troubles me. It looks a bit like jpg artifacts.
It looks a bit like jpg artifacts.
It looked like that in the raw converter. The base surface is a CD, and the light coming off the reflective part was odd. I think the effect on the wings is a combination of this and a very shallow depth of field.
Post a Comment
- this was done in-camera. Only a little contrast added later.
- it would be easy enough to clone out the little blue intrustion top right. I couldn't decide whether to do this or not, so left it.
Hints of Cronenburg.
The silhouetted head is very interesting, in both the top and reflected view, but the blurred hind section bothers me, and the background colors are somewhat disturbing. One case in which I might rather see a black and white!
Well the title was deliberate - following akikana's recent photos. Does the existence of the title influence this picture that much?
I tried to write a 'However' sentence but struggled. I am still struggling.
I'd agree with this, but ad that its the smudginess of the wing and other fine detail in the shadow that troubles me. It looks a bit like jpg artifacts.
It looked like that in the raw converter. The base surface is a CD, and the light coming off the reflective part was odd. I think the effect on the wings is a combination of this and a very shallow depth of field.