tiny cemetery

 

8th Sept. I have had a new flash diffuser for ages and not really given it a proper road test. For those not involved with macro photography, taking pics of tiny creatures can be problematic. For reasons I don't quite understand (even in half decent daylight) macro photography often requires the use of a flash. And the light can't be harsh, but should be nicely diffused. What you need to do is spend some money on a soft box or diffuser. It is something of a niche market and there are 2 main companies making a name for themselves selling these complex devices for something like £120.  They are made from polypropylene sheets held together with snap-poppers. (So very inexpensive materials.) You could make one yourself. Or pay an extravagent amount of money to have one delivered from Australia or the US. 

However I noticed a new player in the field. A Chinese company (Guage) was getting decent reviews for their version of a flash diffuser and it was about half the price of the Cygnustech or AK diffusers. Available through Amazon. Up till now I had been using a Pixapro softbox which velcro-ed onto the front of my flash and did a fine, if low-tech job, of producing a decent diffuse light for my macro photos. It cost £10! And folds flat and sits in the lid of my camera case.

the Guage size 3 version: 6 piece folding, popping flash diffuser

the Pixapro version
(seen with the 60mm macro, before I upgraded to 90mm)

With a little reluctance I ordered the Guage diffuser (£54 that I might be throwing to the four winds) and they let me know it would be a month in arriving. I was in no great hurry and in fact it probably sat another month waiting for a test run. (I think it arrived in about 2.5 weeks, quite a bit ahead of schedule.) It took maybe 10 minutes to pop together the first time but possibly 5 minutes the second time, once I was aware of which bit went where.

My largest concern was that it would be the correct size for my set up as I had to guess which of the 5 or 6 possible sizes would best fit my camera and lens set-up. I chose the number 3 about halfway through their size selection. When I first built the diffuser I felt it was a perfect fit for the camera and lens. The lowest part of the set-up that fits round the bottom of the lens wouldn't be great if I used the clutch and manual focus but it could be detatched if that was your thing. I find the auto-focus (and animal eye-detect) works excellently with my camera when shooting macro. Also the very furthest top part of the diffuser is optional and presumably just to guide the light down onto the subject. It seems well designed and all fits together and comes apart with just the right amount of engineering heft. 

Phytocoris populi - the perfect subject,
sits so still you could confuse it for dead

But does it work? Is it an improvement over the £10 version that takes 2 minutes to set up rather than 5? Well, yes and no. The answers will depend on what your subject is. Macro photography can cover anything small, from the ball of a ball-point pen to insects and slime mould. I do mostly insects. My first trial in the cemetery wasn't on the best day. There weren't a huge number of tiny bugs crawling about the gravestones. The light from the flash through the diffuser seemed good and mostly worked very well. However there was one major problem. It the creature was fairly sentient (and not just a bit of lichen,) as I approached it often became a bit nervous of the huge gaping white jaws of the diffuser looming over it and flew off.

In order to get decent close-ups, I have to get the subject to within inches of the glass. Between 10 inches and 3. The front shield of the diffuser is about 6 or 7" ahead of the lens and frankly scares off any flighty insect. Big problem! It could be that the diffuser isn't the best size for my requirements after all. Although I'm not sure a smaller version would necessarily fit on my camera and lens. And there is no way of knowing (other than spending another £54) as they are not sold in a local shop. This is why I prefer to handle stuff (ie clothes/shoes/cameras) in local shops rather than buy blindly onlinely.

common wasp, Vespula vulgaris

Helina sp.

So now it can't have been a total disaster because I got at least medium close to this fly which the Obsidentify app has ID-ed as a non-species-specific Helina. And no doubt if I moved at an even slower pace towards insects they would be less intimidated by the large white jaws of flashing light. But it was notably the only major weak point of the diffuser which, as I say, is well designed, well-made, folds flat in a slightly too large cheap zip bag, but is mostly a pretty good addition to my equipmient. And for photographing dead or non moving macro (ball-point pens, slime moulds, lichens, bugs that don't run fast or fly off) it will be perfect. However my largest take-away from this is I'm very glad I didn't buy the AK diffuser or Cignustech one at £120! I suspect I will stick to carrying the Pixapro version everywhere, and the Guage version will stay at home except for specific macro adventures. It is relatively easy to slip flat next to the camera case in my backpack but has been on quite a few trips without ever being removed, assembled and used. 

nettle tap micro moth Anthophila fabriciana
maybe the first time I've photo-ed this?

harlequin ladybird
photo without flash which created too much shiny reflection

Helina impuncta*

Garden cross spider


here's a quick quiz - what's this familiar plant?
answer at the bottom of the page if I remember!

brand new comma

I clambered through the overgrown vegetation to the In Loving area. I had to get the secateurs out to trim back some nettles and yet still got stung on bare legs and ankles. There were some hovers and flies but precious little considering the recent warm weather. There was one cracking comma but it was camera shy and quickly took off heading upward asnd settling on a branch of the tree overhead. The 90mm lens struggled to get a photo of it up on high.

I was fast losing the joy of the macro lens and thinking about changing back to the long lens for some bird photos as there wasn't much of note in the small insect world today. I put some food out at the tunnel stream but there weren't many takers. I had a chat with my new friend Sachi, another keen wildlife photographer, who had been encouraged to visit Warriston by Rosanna I think. Both of us found the place unusually short on exciting photos. 

On the way back to the In Loving area I saw the grey wagtail, which is always a treat. He spends the Summer raising a family then returns in the Autumn and stays through the Winter. Plenty speckled woods about and a few hovers. Best specimen of the day was a red admiral at the crypts.

best beast today

The above is a weird shot. I was surprised it came out well and looking like the butterfly is sitting on a horizontal slab. From what I remember it was taken looking up towards the ledge at the top of the crypts. So it is actually hanging off a vertical face. 

Phaonia angelicae*

*I am not sure how or on what basis the Obsidentify app IDs things. It does give a percentage certainty and I always relax when it says 100% certain. However I have seen a couple of IDs I don't understand. The above looks very similar (identical as far as I could see) to the other flies it ID-ed as Helina impuncta and Helina sp. (Sp: Meaning it couldn't identify the species just the larger group that contains several flies that might fit the photo.)

Syrphus sp.

Hydrotaea sp.

Helina sp.

This specimen only IDs as Helina sp. And yet putting it up on screen next to Phaonia angelicae it looks identical. Same colour legs. Only difference I can see is the angle of the antennae at the eyes. And the stronger colour of eyes in these 2 photos. I wonder what is being seen by the algorithms that identifies one and not the other. Since none of the words Phaonia nor angelicae nor Helina appear in the Large Book of Insects, 608 pages, I cannot enlighten you further. (That book is struggling to retain my respect as various things I've found outdoors recently have not been among the 1653 species it has bothered to catch in a jam jar and describe.)

I am often glad this is a hobby for fun and I don't have to learn all these flies' and hoverflies' names like the people who contribute to Hoverflies UK facebook group. They are very particular about grid references and identifications much more than hey see this fascinating fly-like thing I came across, or here's a beautiful hoverfly in flight. (One coming up in next blog.) So I don't really bother with Hoverflies UK.

Obsidentify is my favourite new app/website and I will use it to ID stuff I don't know, whereupon it is recorded onto a database. Is it the same database as iRecord? No that would be too helpful and convenient. So I put anything rare (if I recognise it is rare) onto iRecord and most other stuff gets onto the Observation database. Except butterflies which I generally recognise so don't need help to ID. Also I totally pass the buck on ID-ing to Obsidentify. If I have misidentified an insect

A/ it was the fault of the app, not me!

B/ if the big bug book (608pp,) doesn't recognise it, how am I supposed to?

C/ does anyone really care? (Outwith Hoverflies UK) I know I don't. However...

I am doing what I can to learn these things as I come across them but there are a LOT more flies and hovers than the 30-odd butterflies we get in Scotland. Obsidentify is very handy although possibly not (unlike the pope) infallible. 

something (or not)

I very much liked the strip lighting in this snail shell (Cepaea sp.)
(it might have been reflecting the diffused flash, but not sure)

Syrphus sp.

another Phaonia angelicae

Carder bee

Syrphus ribesii

brown knapweed

rosebay willowherb

Muscina prolapsa

Obsidentify says Syrphus torvus - Hairy-eyed hoverfly

The above is another case of WTF. What is Obsidentify seeing that makes this a Hairy-eyed hoverfly? Not hairy eyes! The big book of hoverflies says eye-hairs indistinct in females. This is a female. It also says back legs blacker so that may be the kicker. Although there is also the second basal cell (of wing) entirely covered in microtrichia to seperate them from Syrphus vitripennis. But you knew that already?

Quiz - it was of course a monkey puzzle tree (near front gate at Warriston)
(unusually linear leaf line rather than offset or fractal)

front garden pussy on way home