Ok - you were warned. I told you that we were getting back to the bugs and spiders today... well, the spiders at least for today.

I saw this tiny little guy on one of the bushes out in our front yard. And when I say tiny, I mean like head of a pin tiny! Based on my calculations (which are this point are pretty much eyeballed) - this guy is about 2mm in size (maybe... and I do mean maybe... his legs could have reached 3mm fully stretched out). Despite the tiny size, I saw him make jumps of over 65mm! He was absolutely fearless.

This is the only shot of him that I managed to get, and unfortunately I wasn't able to find him again after running inside to get my tele-converter. I've cropped down to show a bit more of the detail (just mouseover to see the original version).

Technical Data:Canon EOS 7D, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, 1/250 sec at f/16. Canon Speedlight 580EX II flash in auto mode and wireless control. Image Stabilization on. ISO 160. RAW processing and cropped in Adobe Camera Raw.

I know many people don't like spiders, but this tiny guy just fascinates me. The thought that there is a beating heart, a tiny brain, everything. It is just incredible. I don't know if this is a juvenile or a full grown adult (I still have yet to find a spider ID book worth buying), so I have no clue on the species here. Regardless, I really love those semi-translucent legs!

Come on... you have to admit that this tiny little guy is pretty cool... and at 2mm, he is absolutely 100% harmless to everything except those other pests in your garden that you don't want anyway!

Give spiders a chance.

- Bill

Sorry - still haven't managed to process the PVGP photos, so another bug shot from Beechwood Farms.

This is a pair of mating damselflies.

Technical Data: Canon EOS 7D, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, 1/250 sec at f/16. Canon Speedlight 580EX II flash in auto mode and wireless control. Image Stabilization on. ISO 160. RAW processing in Adobe Camera Raw. Beechwood Farms Nature Reserve, Fox Chapel, PA.

I am hoping to get to the PVGP photos tonight, and if I finish early enough, I'll try to post at least one from that set. Stay tuned.

- Bill

I have a ton of photos to process from this weekend, but honestly, right now I'm kind of exhausted. So just stopping by to share a cool caterpillar photo...

Technical Data: Canon EOS 7D, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, 1/250 sec at f/16. Canon Speedlight 580EX II flash in auto mode and wireless control. Image Stabilization on. ISO 160. RAW processing in Adobe Camera Raw. Beechwood Farms Nature Reserve, Fox Chapel, PA.

Soon I'll have Vintage Grand Prix and a bunch more spider photos to share.

- Bill

Hummingbird moths exhibit what is known as convergent evolution. Basically, what this means is that two species evolve separately but arrive at a very similar result. In this case, the hummingbird moth and its namesake hummingbirds have evolved to have similar appearances, similar habits, similar diets, etc... but obviously, they are absolutely not related at all. This quite often happens when you have animals filling a niche in an environment - in this case, feeding from the nectar of flowers.

These particular hummingbird moths are called Hummingbird Clearwing Moths (Hemaris thysbe). They range in size from about 1.5 - 2.5 inches, and as their namesake implies, they fly just like hummingbirds - even with the humming noise from their wings.

We have had them visit the flowers in our garden at home, but only ever one at a time, and they are incredibly skittish like that. I couldn't even get within 10 feet of those individuals. However, this past weekend, we visited Beechwood Farms Nature Reserve. We started the day by finding a small batch of flowers that had two, then three hummingbird moths flying around feeding. I managed to get in pretty close and get some shots. We then wandered the trails (finding all kinds of bugs that I'll be sharing over the coming weeks) and eventually returned to buy bird seed for Anya's feeders. That was when we found another batch of flowers with at least eight to ten more hummingbird moths. I was able to slowly make my way into the middle of the flowers and sit their firing off shots as the moths flew around me to feed.

Technical Data: Canon EOS 7D, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, 1/250 sec at f/16. Canon Speedlight 580EX II flash in auto mode and wireless control. Image Stabilization on. ISO 160. RAW processing in Adobe Camera Raw. Beechwood Farms Nature Reserve, Fox Chapel, PA.

All of the shots were done with manual focus mainly because I was able to get the manual focus close and then move myself and the camera forward and backward slightly to get the exact focus I wanted. It was still a challenge and I had plenty of moths fly away before I could obtain focus - they don't spend much time at any one flower.

Another challenge was making sure that the flash was pointed in the right direction - if I changed the distance I was shooting at, the flash would not be pointed correctly without adjustment. This tended to make me stick within a specific distance rather than shooting whatever I could see, but this also helps to keep the shots closer to 1:1 magnification.

I am also not thrilled with some of the background in the shots - particularly with the amount of dead/dying flowers that are around. It is an unfortunate side-effect, and I was messing with Photoshop tonight to see if I could remedy it, but so far my photoshopping skills are not quite up to the challenge. Maybe some day in the future.

Anyway, make sure to stop in frequently as I have a bunch of hummingbird moth photos as well as a bunch of other cool things to share. Thanks for stopping by!

- Bill

Alright, as promised, here are some more flower photos.

As I was shooting these day lilies, I tried several different apertures for different looks. Then I decided I would shoot a whole series and possibly print them for a framed set. Unfortunately, I don't think they work well to be framed, but it will work nicely to explain aperture and depth of field.

First - every camera lens has an aperture. It is the opening that allows the light to pass through the lens into the camera. Opening the aperture allows more light in, closing it allows in less light. Aperture values are represented in f/# notation. That notation is actually an equation - focal length of the lens / aperture value. So, if you have an 80mm lens, and select an aperture of f/8, that means that the opening to let the light in is 10mm. Bump up to f/16, and the opening drops down to 5mm.

So how does that apply to depth of field? Well, to start, let's define depth of field... in simplest terms, it is the amount of the scene that is in clarity (not necessarily focus, but we'll leave that for another time). The amount of depth of field is directly related to the aperture. Select a lower aperture value, and you get less depth of field; select a higher aperture value, and you get more depth of field. If you think of it in those terms, it is extremely simple. f/2.8 is going to have much less depth of field than f/16.

Where some folks get confused is when they look at the aperture sizes in relation to the f/# notation. f/2.8 is a very large aperture opening, f/16 is a small opening. Remember - that is because it is an equation, so a larger denominator produces a smaller result (remember your algebra?). However, if you think about it in terms of depth of field, it is somewhat easier to keep straight. Small f/# gives a small amount of depth of field; large f/# gives a larger depth of field.

Here is a good way to understand how a larger aperture opening (small f/#) gives more depth of field than a smaller aperture opening (large f/#) - say you have a bunch of M&Ms and you want to keep track of how many of each color come through an opening. If you have a large opening (large aperture/small f/#), it will be very hard to keep track of each individual candy that comes through, so you do some guestimating. Switch to a smaller opening (smaller aperture/larger f/#) and only a few candies will come through at a time, making your count much more detailed.

The trade off? It will take a lot longer to count the same number of M&Ms with a smaller opening. The same is true of photography and apertures and shutter speed... but we'll discuss that more later.

So take a look at these shots. Mouseover each aperture, and it will show the depth of field provided by that aperture. Slide along the apertures to see the progression. Compare the aperture size with the depth of field. When you get into the higher apertures, the difference is not as drastic, but look to the green plants in the background on the left for the difference.

Make sense? I think I'll probably keep an eye out for other good examples and do this kind of explanation again some time. At the very least, I'll have to show how shutter speed factors into things.

Drop me a comment and let me know what you think of this kind of post. Was it helpful? Was it confusing? Let me know.

Thanks for stopping by.

- Bill

Ok - a slight bounce back to the bugs today. I have another day of flower photos to do, but it is a much more in-depth post with discussion of apertures and depth of field, so I want to take my time with it and hopefully make it clear to understand and useful for folks.

So instead, you get a sneak peak at a hummingbird moth photo.

Technical Data: Canon EOS 7D, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, 1/250 sec at f/16. Canon Speedlight 580EX II flash in auto mode and wireless control. Image Stabilization on. ISO 160. RAW processing in Adobe Camera Raw.

Did you do the double take? Did you think that was a hummingbird? Look again... notice the antennae and the extra legs?

I'll tell you more about hummingbird moths in a few days. Stay tuned.

- Bill

Ok - as promised - a short break from the spiders.... The other day as I looked around for more creepy-crawlies to shoot, I turned my attention to some of the day lilies in our yard and took some shots focusing on their pollen stamens.

Technical Data: Canon EOS 7D, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM with Kenko Teleplus PRO 300 "DG" AF 2x Teleconverter, 1/250 sec at f/16. Canon Speedlight 580EX II flash in auto mode and wireless control. Image Stabilization on. ISO 160. RAW processing in Adobe Camera Raw.

And some getting really up close and personal with the pollen in an exercise in super-macro....

Technical Data: Canon EOS 7D, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM with Kenko Teleplus PRO 300 "DG" AF 2x Teleconverter, 1/250 sec at f/16. Canon Speedlight 580EX II flash in auto mode and wireless control. Image Stabilization on. ISO 160. RAW processing in Adobe Camera Raw.

Hope this helps counter balance the week of spider shots, but I have more spiders to share soon, so probably not... (sorry!)

- Bill

Ok - I know... that title alone is enough to turn anyone away from this post, but this spider really does look like he has a skull on his face - it is uncanny. Plus, I promise to take a little break from the spiders after today. I have more shots to share of this guy, but I'm going to spread them out a bit and switch back to some flowers and some other bugs (including a hummingbird hawk moth!) over the coming days.

But check this guy out...

Technical Data: Canon EOS 7D, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, 1/250 sec at f/16. Canon Speedlight 580EX II flash in auto mode and wireless control. Image Stabilization on. ISO 160. RAW processing in Adobe Camera Raw.

Going to skip the discussion for now... I've got a bunch of photos to process so I have other stuff than spiders to share... ;)

Thanks for stopping in.

- Bill

OK - just an assortment to finish up with this jumping spider (sorry - still haven't been able to ID it).

Technical Data: Canon EOS 7D, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM with Kenko Teleplus PRO 300 "DG" AF 2x Teleconverter (except first 2), 1/250 sec at f/16. Canon Speedlight 580EX II flash in auto mode and wireless control. Image Stabilization on. ISO 160. RAW processing in Adobe Camera Raw.

Thanks for looking. And don't forget to go vote on the post here!

- Bill

As I was working with this guy, I was trying many different angles - some because he would move around, some because I just wanted to get as many angles as possible before he got tired of having a camera shoved in his face.

When I tried this angle, my camera flash bracket put the flash to the side of the spider. I could have moved it, but then I thought about how a shot would look with the light coming from the side and producing this strong shadow on the other side of the spider.

Fortunately, it worked exactly as I had envisioned before clicking the shutter. The side lighting caused a very distinct shadow to the far side of the spider - producing an effect that makes the spider look much larger than he really is. In truth, because of the setup I was using (basically a 2:1 magnification), this spider was already looking pretty giant in the viewfinder. However, that big shadow just increases that feeling in my opinion.

I shared this on a forum I frequent, and received lack-luster responses to the usage of the flash in this manner. One suggestion was to use a reflector to bounce some of the flash light back into the right side. This probably would have still kept the distinct shadow, but would have helped to bring back some of the details on the right side of the spider.

I don't know if that would have really done much, or if I would have liked it better - I personally am very pleased with this shot and the feeling it produces for me.

Technical Data: Canon EOS 7D, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM with Kenko Teleplus PRO 300 "DG" AF 2x Teleconverter, 1/250 sec at f/16. Canon Speedlight 580EX II flash in auto mode and wireless control. Image Stabilization on. ISO 160. RAW processing in Adobe Camera Raw.

So cast your vote and let me know what you think... whether the strong shadow works, or if it ruins the image. Drop me a comment and let me know why you voted the way you did (sorry - no option will be provided for 'the spider ruined the image, not the shadow!'). Remember - you don't have to know all about photography to be able to vote on what you like...

Thanks for stopping by!

- Bill