Red Damselfly

[pelliott1954]

Hi All,

I believe there are Large and small versions, not sure which this is, it's a new venture for me, I think it was about two inches long.

Saw it over my Pond and recalling Stan saying they keep returning to the same place I went and sat on the lawn close by, and sure enough it did, think I have a bit to learn about the 100mm F2.8L Macro though, unsure which distance setting is best

I like this shot as it showed the wings up well against the light coloured leaf.

1a by Paul Elliott, on Flickr

A bit menacing up close!

11 by Paul Elliott, on Flickr


13 by Paul Elliott, on Flickr

Paul

[tesarver]

Re: Red Damselfly

Well taken set Paul

Tom

[Trev B]

Re: Red Damselfly

Nice set Paul, the first is a cracker

[Stan]

Re: Red Damselfly

they are male large red damselflies, some good detail on all but it is best to try and get into position where not only the head and wings but the length of the body is in the plane of focus

Stan

[pelliott1954]

Re: Red Damselfly

Thanks Guys for the kind comments here, very much a learning curve with this subject and this lens, good point from Stan to bear in mind

Paul

[Dawesy]

Re: Red Damselfly

I'd be well pleased with that Paul

[ctrollen]

Re: Red Damselfly

Thanks Guys for the kind comments here, very much a learning curve with this subject and this lens, good point from Stan to bear in mind

I've had that lens for nearly a year and am still getting to grips with the depth of field, or lack of it! If the light doesn't allow you a small enough aperture to get everything in focus you could try stacking shots which I discovered the need for by accident. I took a shot of an azure damselfly which was a bit like your first one, focus-wise. Luckily for me, I must have moved slightly during the burst of shots and also had another almost identical shot that had the tail in focus and the head blurry so I stacked the two using Affinity and ended up with the the final shot:
https://www.eos-magazine-forum.com/s...-%29-damselfly

[Richard W]

Re: Red Damselfly

F5.6 doesn't give you much depth of field for macro, a couple of stops narrower would make all the difference. For example at 1 metre, 100 mm lens, APS-C camera, depth of field at f5.6 = 2 cms, at f11 = 4 cms. At 50 cms, even f11 only gives 1 cm depth of field.

[Stan]

Re: Red Damselfly

F5.6 doesn't give you much depth of field for macro, a couple of stops narrower would make all the difference. For example at 1 metre, 100 mm lens, APS-C camera, depth of field at f5.6 = 2 cms, at f11 = 4 cms. At 50 cms, even f11 only gives 1 cm depth of field.

I always shoot at f8 whether with my 100 f2.8 macro or, more usually 300 f4 and converter and to get sharp from head to tail end you must ensure the whole subject is parallel to the lens

stan