some 2:1 and a 4:1 macro (flash making it much easier)

[rhermans]

WackyRoger wrote:

Great detail on that little thingie.


TOTALLY WACKY roger

Thanks Roger

[rhermans]

snostorm wrote:

Hi Ronny,

My jaw just dropped when I saw these . . .

. . . and it's a good thing that I'm writing this 'cause my mouth still isn't working right!

The only thing that might have made them better would have been more contrast in the subject, but my hat's definitely off -- I've played with both a 1:1 macro and the Raynox closeup, and have a hard time handling either with their respective paper thin DOF -- together, they must be virtually impossible!

As Roy suggested, get that flash off-camera and there will be nothing stopping you!

Scott

Thanks Scott,

Somehow the Raynox setup seems to work for me, i've got more problems with extension tubes.

As soon as the cables arrive I'll start the off-camera thingie.

Ronny

[rhermans]

mtngal wrote:

Wow! Love your thingie - don't think it's a moth but I can't say why I think that as I'm really clueless when it comes to insects, flowers, birds,and animals other than horses and dogs.

Thanks Harriet,

my guess to go for a type of moth are the antenna's, but with insects this size you never know.

Ronny

[rhermans]

Enjoy I did, Thank You. That first one is just amazing in it's detail and lighting, but still captures the delicacy.

Thanks Rodney

[rhermans]

jachol wrote:

More good ones Ronny, I like those a lot.

Roy ... Thanks for the links ... I think I've had them before from you ... I've got all my bits together now, just in process of fabricating an off camera flash bracket, family commitments taking up my time at the moment, then I'll get it finished. Cheers ... Jack

Thanks Jack.

[penolta]

You certainly have nothing to apologize for with the first ones - that is one hairy little bugger - I only wish I could tell you what it is, but I haven't a clue. They are, none the less, stunning images.

Aphids are tough, especially the young ones that are so nearly transparent; that they are the same color as the host plant doesn't help, either. My experience with supplementary lenses (I have used as much as +10) has had varied success, one of the problems being a softening of the image and/or an apparentloss of contrast. Playing around with brightness, contrast and sharpness in pp often helps. Still, a nice capture!

[rhermans]

Thanks Penolta.

I've been playing around with extension tubes, diopters, teleconverters and have gotten al kinds of almosts. Up till now the Raynox seems to be the easiest for me to work with. I know it's not the most professionel looking thing but it's the end result that counts.

[robar]

rhermans wrote:

Thanks Penolta.

I've been playing around with extension tubes, diopters, teleconverters .

that's what's great about macro. there seems to be an endless way of combining all the different ways of shooting them. use the bean pole , it works.

roy