Lost part of my camera! But I got the shot. (High spider factor)

[Wallydraigle]

I lost the little rubber viewfinder cup thingy off my D60 It's been loose lately, and I've been meaning to fix it, but I just never got around to it, and now it's too late. It will probably cost upwards of $2 to replace, but I'll get by... one day at a time. When I noticed it was missing I was laying in a patch of weeds, photographing an emormous Argiope aurauntia.

These are huge spiders in the orbweaver family (Araneidae). This one is a female and is over 3 inches across measured diagonally from toe to toe. Males are much smaller. The zigzags that they weave into their webs are called "stabilimenta", because it was first thought that they provided a structural support for the web. No one is really sure what they actually do. One hypoythesis says that they attract flying insects, but there is no conclusive data to support this. Another hypothesis say that the highly visible patches keep birds from accidentally flying through the web and destroying it. At the present there is no totally satisfactory answer.

The poses in all these shots are similar. I was focussing more on the lighting. I think that these are all at least okay. I'm not sure which style I like best. These were all taken with my D60, and my 180mm f/3.5 L macro, with one 550EX flash unit on a bracket mounted to the lens, and another 550EX flash mounted to a small tripod and placed behind the spider in various positions and slaved wirelessly to the flash on camera.

Oh yeah, the pics:
1
2
3
4
5
6

I think it was worth losing my little cup thingy to get to see a beauty like this, and walk away the goods.

Enjoy!

 

[MaxDSP]

*shudder*

Great pics again lirion...:beer:

 

[Koing]

Looks good to me

At least you lost something that wasn't expensive, but I know how you feel. I hate to LOSE anything also. Just very annoying!

Koing

 

[Dragon365]

Very, very nice. I wish I had your budget and your skills.

 

[Feldenak]

Cool. That's the spider that lives outside my bedroom window. She's gotten quite big recently, I'll try to remember to snap a few new shots of her tomorrow. Never did know what her scientific name was until now. Thanks lirion.

Spider 1

Spider 2

 

[SilverThief]

Excellent.

 

[MrPickins]

Nice Pics! Those things always creep me out. I've seen them get as large as 6 inches from toe to toe:disgust:
We always call them banana spiders, or golden orb spiders.

 

[Cooljt1]

thats national geographic quality right there. nice work lirion

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Cool. That's the spider that lives outside my bedroom window. She's gotten quite big recently, I'll try to remember to snap a few new shots of her tomorrow. Never did know what her scientific name was until now. Thanks lirion.

Spider 1

Spider 2

That's cool! The little spider behind the female is actually the male of the same species, and it looks like they're copulating. Of course she probably ate him immediately afterwards:Q That's just the way it goes. There was an article someone posted on here about how male Argiopes spontaneously die durring copulation. Male spiders don't have penises, they have breeding palps, or little finger-like parts up by their mouths that hold the sperm. You could say that they have two schlongs hanging off their faces:Q But anyway if a male Argiope ever gets both of his schlongs inside something at once, his heart stops on its own and he dies. They don't both have to be inside the female either. Spider sex must be something else

 

[Ornery]

Looks like you got the lighting down. Sweet!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nice jorb!

Did you record the f/stop? Was wondering about depth of field.

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Nice jorb!

Did you record the f/stop? Was wondering about depth of field.

F/stop is recorded automatically in the EXIF. Most were done with f/16, but some of them with busy backgrounds were done as opened up as f/8 to try to blow it out some. The spider is mostly flat so outrageously small apertures weren't really needed. I've noticed that with this lens I don't get much visible diffraction until f/32. It really is a sweet piece of glass

 

[Spoooon]

You should have put your finger next to them when you took the pictures so that we would have some idea of the relative size.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

My experience with Canon is just beginning, but everything about the equipment I do have says quality. I saw some nice images done with the 100-400 USM IS and a 20mm extension tube. Seems to be a favored combination by many for butterflies. Less likely to spook the critters I guess.

 

[Zim Hosein]

Great PICS lirion, thanks :beer:

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: lirion

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Cool. That's the spider that lives outside my bedroom window. She's gotten quite big recently, I'll try to remember to snap a few new shots of her tomorrow. Never did know what her scientific name was until now. Thanks lirion.

Spider 1

Spider 2

That's cool! The little spider behind the female is actually the male of the same species, and it looks like they're copulating. Of course she probably ate him immediately afterwards:Q That's just the way it goes. There was an article someone posted on here about how male Argiopes spontaneously die durring copulation. Male spiders don't have penises, they have breeding palps, or little finger-like parts up by their mouths that hold the sperm. You could say that they have two schlongs hanging off their faces:Q But anyway if a male Argiope ever gets both of his schlongs inside something at once, his heart stops on its own and he dies. They don't both have to be inside the female either. Spider sex must be something else

Yeah, those two little males are long gone and she's swelling like a baloon. My fiance and I kinda check on her once or twice a week just to see how she's doing. I will say spider webs are amazing, we've had some hellacious thunderstorms & wind and she's still there. The cats like to get in the window and watch the spider and the 5-lined skink that lives in the same area.

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
My experience with Canon is just beginning, but everything about the equipment I do have says quality. I saw some nice images done with the 100-400 USM IS and a 20mm extention tube. Seems to be a favored combination by many for butterflies. Less likely to spook the critters I guess.

The 100-400mm focuses pretty close on it's own, and with 20mm of extension it would be more than enough magnification for butterflies. It's a good lens for that kind of thing. But the thing about the 180mm macro is that it spanks the 100-400mm in terms of sharpness. It spanks almost anything really. The 100-400mm is no slouch, but it just can't compare. For close-ups I'd rather throw a 1.4x converter on the 180mm and work on stalking technique to get in closer if I have to, it's just that much better. I use flash for macro and close-ups, so no IS on the 180mm isn't a problem there. The 100-400mm really comes into its own for far off things where the IS really shines.

I've heard of people using the 300mm f/2.8 IS with tubes for butterflies as well, with excellent results. That's a $4000 lens though, so don't tempt me I can't afford anything else for quite a while now.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: lirion

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
My experience with Canon is just beginning, but everything about the equipment I do have says quality. I saw some nice images done with the 100-400 USM IS and a 20mm extention tube. Seems to be a favored combination by many for butterflies. Less likely to spook the critters I guess.

The 100-400mm focuses pretty close on it's own, and with 20mm of extension it would be more than enough magnification for butterflies. It's a good lens for that kind of thing. But the thing about the 180mm macro is that it spanks the 100-400mm in terms of sharpness. It spanks almost anything really. The 100-400mm is no slouch, but it just can't compare. For close-ups I'd rather throw a 1.4x converter on the 180mm and work on stalking technique to get in closer if I have to, it's just that much better. I use flash for macro and close-ups, so no IS on the 180mm isn't a problem there. The 100-400mm really comes into its own for far off things where the IS really shines.

I've heard of people using the 300mm f/2.8 IS with tubes for butterflies as well, with excellent results. That's a $4000 lens though, so don't tempt me I can't afford anything else for quite a while now.

I hear ya. Well, if I hit the lottery big time, I'll buy ya one

I have no doubt that your lens is superior to one not built with macro in mind

BTW, how is it as a normal telephoto? Some Nikons are really great macro lenses, but are much less than sharp when used otherwise.

 

[igowerf]

oh dear god.

 

[Legendary]

I just earned another smack from my mom from showing her these.

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: lirion

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
My experience with Canon is just beginning, but everything about the equipment I do have says quality. I saw some nice images done with the 100-400 USM IS and a 20mm extention tube. Seems to be a favored combination by many for butterflies. Less likely to spook the critters I guess.

The 100-400mm focuses pretty close on it's own, and with 20mm of extension it would be more than enough magnification for butterflies. It's a good lens for that kind of thing. But the thing about the 180mm macro is that it spanks the 100-400mm in terms of sharpness. It spanks almost anything really. The 100-400mm is no slouch, but it just can't compare. For close-ups I'd rather throw a 1.4x converter on the 180mm and work on stalking technique to get in closer if I have to, it's just that much better. I use flash for macro and close-ups, so no IS on the 180mm isn't a problem there. The 100-400mm really comes into its own for far off things where the IS really shines.

I've heard of people using the 300mm f/2.8 IS with tubes for butterflies as well, with excellent results. That's a $4000 lens though, so don't tempt me I can't afford anything else for quite a while now.

I hear ya. Well, if I hit the lottery big time, I'll buy ya one

I have no doubt that your lens is superior to one not built with macro in mind

BTW, how is it as a normal telephoto? Some Nikons are really great macro lenses, but are much less than sharp when used otherwise.

That's very generous of you I don't play the lottery, but if my long lost rich uncle that I've never met dies and leaves me a fortune I'll get you that 4x5 you've been wanting. Deal?

I've noticed that when used as a normal telephoto it appears to be less sharp than when used close up, but still pretty good. I suspect that there's really only a slight drop off, but when we see a close-up of something we are blown away by the little details that we never get to see otherwise, so it looks sharper. I don't sit around and shoot resolution charts so I don't know for certain A lot of it is probably psychological.

 

[dmurray14]

Very very cool pics, but damn thats one scary ass spider.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: lirion

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: lirion

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
My experience with Canon is just beginning, but everything about the equipment I do have says quality. I saw some nice images done with the 100-400 USM IS and a 20mm extention tube. Seems to be a favored combination by many for butterflies. Less likely to spook the critters I guess.

The 100-400mm focuses pretty close on it's own, and with 20mm of extension it would be more than enough magnification for butterflies. It's a good lens for that kind of thing. But the thing about the 180mm macro is that it spanks the 100-400mm in terms of sharpness. It spanks almost anything really. The 100-400mm is no slouch, but it just can't compare. For close-ups I'd rather throw a 1.4x converter on the 180mm and work on stalking technique to get in closer if I have to, it's just that much better. I use flash for macro and close-ups, so no IS on the 180mm isn't a problem there. The 100-400mm really comes into its own for far off things where the IS really shines.

I've heard of people using the 300mm f/2.8 IS with tubes for butterflies as well, with excellent results. That's a $4000 lens though, so don't tempt me I can't afford anything else for quite a while now.

I hear ya. Well, if I hit the lottery big time, I'll buy ya one

I have no doubt that your lens is superior to one not built with macro in mind

BTW, how is it as a normal telephoto? Some Nikons are really great macro lenses, but are much less than sharp when used otherwise.

That's very generous of you I don't play the lottery, but if my long lost rich uncle that I've never met dies and leaves me a fortune I'll get you that 4x5 you've been wanting. Deal?

I've noticed that when used as a normal telephoto it appears to be less sharp than when used close up, but still pretty good. I suspect that there's really only a slight drop off, but when we see a close-up of something we are blown away by the little details that we never get to see otherwise, so it looks sharper. I don't sit around and shoot resolution charts so I don't know for certain A lot of it is probably psychological.

Deal!
:beer:

 

[Wallydraigle]

This morning there's a male in her web! Maybe later today they'll get it on and I can get some pictures of that.

 

[Confused]

Originally posted by: lirion
This morning there's a male in her web! Maybe later today they'll get it on and I can get some pictures of that.

Spider porn!!




These are some more cool pictures, lirion Very nice quality


Garry