Post your BUG shots!

Pigpen101 wrote in post #19107914
Then I noticed it moving. It was moving up & down apparently to wiggle out of it's skin. Look how soft it is in comparison to the onw I posted earlier.

Now it really reminds me of a lobster tail.

Hosted photo: posted by Pigpen101 in
./showthread.php?p=191​07914&i=i29961172
forum: Macro

Hosted photo: posted by Pigpen101 in
./showthread.php?p=191​07914&i=i73148112
forum: Macro

Amazing stuff. Insect metamorphosis never fails to amaze. Great shots of it.

After seeing how quickly that thing began to change I decided to look at the one from yesterday to see if it had changed at all. I went to get the leaf I noticed on the other side was one of the ladybugs I had brought indoors. Turned leaf over & found yet ANOTHER pupae! I now have 3 separate lady bugs in different timelines of the pupae stage. Crazy. I will try to pay attention every hour or so & photograph any changes for yinz guys.

So here is a shot of the pupae I discovered with the wondering ladybug in the background. The lady bug then went to the other side of the leaf and sat (seemingly) with the pupae from the other day for quite a long while actually.

Need to find out if they molt several times or if like monarchs, go straight to the ladybug.

Thank you sir.

The colors are already changing.

Terry McDaniel wrote in post #19107768
A very cooperative Robber Fly.

Hosted photo: posted by Terry McDaniel in
./showthread.php?p=191​07768&i=i129470396
forum: Macro

Hosted photo: posted by Terry McDaniel in
./showthread.php?p=191​07768&i=i224407201
forum: Macro

fantastic detail

Pigpen101 wrote in post #19107944
The colors are already changing.

Hosted photo: posted by Pigpen101 in
./showthread.php?p=191​07944&i=i123480215
forum: Macro

Fascinating.

Ok, looks cool.. Here is what I can expect over the next couple days. Hope I'm not too busy to miss anything.

https://www.bing.com …7FB&view=detail​&FORM=VIRE

Archibald wrote in post #19107923
Sorry to hear about the 90mm!! I hope you have plans to replace or repair it.

The word "macro" has been used loosely for many decades, so much so that nobody knows what it means any more. I think an operational definition would be photos that require closeup accessories. That works somewhat okay for the 35mm format. The strict 1:1 definition is actually not very good. Photocopiers with optical lenses have 1:1 lenses but nobody would call that macro. How about shooting 1:1 with a phone camera? Now that would be close.

I was unfortunate enough to get caught up in that debate on another forum with some people who also think that the crop factor of a sensor makes a difference in magnification. IMHO if a lens can't project at least a 1:1 image of the subject onto the sensor then it's not a macro lens, and macro extends up to 10:1 (10x). Higher mag than that and your in the realm of micro photography (but I know some micro shooters who claim that micro doesn't start until 20x). Too many people want to believe that the laws of physics and rules of photography have to change for a simple crop of the image circle that's functionally no different than cropping a full frame image in post.

Sense the sensor on my P610 is only 6.17X4.55 then this is obviously not a true macro photo. The Robber Fly was an easy 25mm long. My Tamron did have 1:1, so if I'd taken the photo with my T7i and Tamron at minimum focusing distance it would have been true macro. Correct? I also use a Raynox magnifier, M150 on my 19-55 kit lens, but I don't know if it magnifies enough to be true macro. So I reckon I won't post in this forum anymore.

Film days made it easier, just look at your negative. Can't do that with digital.

Terry McDaniel wrote in post #19108278
Sense the sensor on my P610 is only 6.17X4.55 then this is obviously not a true macro photo. The Robber Fly was an easy 25mm long. My Tamron did have 1:1, so if I'd taken the photo with my T7i and Tamron at minimum focusing distance it would have been true macro. Correct? I also use a Raynox magnifier, M150 on my 19-55 kit lens, but I don't know if it magnifies enough to be true macro. So I reckon I won't post in this forum anymore.

Film days made it easier, just look at your negative. Can't do that with digital.

I don't think there is any requirement for photos to be 1:1 in the POTN macro forums. Closeup and macro pics are welcome here.

pcs wrote in post #19108371

Hosted photo: posted by pcs in
./showthread.php?p=191​08371&i=i10503286
forum: Macro

Why do I mostly get this angle?

Hosted photo: posted by pcs in
./showthread.php?p=191​08371&i=i136827578
forum: Macro

Butt shot - many are like that. Bumblebees are the worst for hiding their heads. I like your first hover pic.

This is a busy little leaf. Out in the field it looked as though the ladybug was just hanging out at a buffet. After looking closer when I got home, the lady bug doesn't look very healthy. Are those some type of mites on it's back?

Couple more ladybugs. I'd say 75% of the images I've posted lately have come from the same little cluster of milkweeds that is right at the beginning of the walking trail. There are other milkweeds on the trail but none of them are seeing the action these are getting. The first one just dropped into my hand. I don't see a lot of ladybugs without spots in my area. The second one also looks like it has some type of mite on it's back.

We had originally thought the re aphids were just the yellow ones changing color. That can't be the case because they are on two different variety of plants. The yellow ones are only on the milkweeds (& there numbers have gotten crazy). Not sure what the name of the plant is the reds ones hang out on. Their numbers are growing but nowhere near the numbers of the yellow. Be interested to see if the red ones multiply like the yellow ones have.