Insect images: receiving, processing, etc.

The impression is still spoiled very noticeably by a cloned pronotum with legs.
And so -- of course, well done.

Overall not bad, given the mediocre quality of the original image.
I would strongly advise you to use Photoshop, instead of software for processing amateur photos from soap boxes.
I tried changing the parameters of the light levels, and this is what happened...

Pictures:

post_13663_1198413913_www.jpg — (158.95к)

I think finishing my legs is too much...
Thus, you can even create new views, so I am against such a large scale of using image editors. I only allow light correction, background lightening, etc.

Allow me to object to you, gentlemen!
I am used to using determinants for symmetrical (or almost so) habitual patterns. Having "got involved" in photography, I understood that there would be lovers of the natural. After thinking about it, I decided that there is a style of this in macrophoto in nature. If the most daring Photoshop alterations do not in any way change the habit of the beetle or anyone else, I will consider my task completed. They looked at it and said: this is the same taxon!
But I want to make a digression: when photographing holotypes, paratypes, lectotypes, and syntypes, I would leave the "natural spread", except that I would play with levels, brightness, and contrast.

This post was edited by Mylabris - 27.12.2007 14: 44 by

I totally agree . In general, I prefer photos of real copies in the collection, rather than" photoshopped " ersatz products assembled from spare parts (such as entomofrankenstein). This, sorry, is more from the field of fine art. But then the drawings are better-at least you can feel the artist's soul in them! And the drawing does not pretend to be scrupulous documentary accuracy.

Let me somewhat disagree.
The beetle(butterfly) in the collection is art. Still life or something.
But the detailed image transmitted with all the subtle nuances (villi , spines, etc.) can be used for a definitive guide.
It's all about moderation . You just need to use Photoshop without fanaticism.

Hmm, they wrote in parallel ...

This post was edited by rpanin - 12/27/2007 14: 54

Allow me to object to you, gentlemen!
I am used to using determinants for symmetrical (or almost so) habitual patterns. Having "got involved" in photography, I understood that there would be lovers of the natural. After thinking about it, I decided that there is a style of this in macrophoto in nature. If the most daring Photoshop alterations do not in any way change the habit of the beetle or anyone else, I will consider my task completed. They looked at it and said: this is the same taxon!
But I want to make a digression: when photographing holotypes, paratypes, lectotypes, and syntypes, I would leave the "natural spread", except that I would play with levels, brightness, and contrast.

As I said, I'm not in favor of doubling halves when photographing for scientific purposes. This is just my opinion.
But if you really do, then be sure to provide information that has been doubled.

As I said, I'm not in favor of doubling halves when photographing for scientific purposes. This is just my opinion.
But if you really do, then be sure to provide information that has been doubled.

I also stand by my opinion. At the same time, I undoubtedly admire the photographic works of Mylabris and Co., and in no case did I want to offend them with something. You just can't disagree, when using Photoshop, you need a sense of proportion, which guarantees the preservation of the original appearance (well, habit) an instance. But any additional drawing," improvement " of the color (distorting the natural shades of the photographed specimen), in my opinion, is unacceptable.

The beetle(butterfly) in the collection is art. Still life or something...
It's all about moderation . You just need to use Photoshop without fanaticism.

Let me disagree with you, dear Ruslan! A copy in the collection (if there are appropriate labels) is not a still life (unlike interior tropical butterfly beetles in wall boxes), but a documentary fact and an object for science. And about moderation when editing photos-with two hands for!

...But any additional drawing," improvement " of the color (distorting the natural shades of the photographed specimen), in my opinion, is unacceptable.

I mean the same thing.
Any improvement in contrast in Photoshop leads to a "fluorescence" of the color gamut. And in order to minimize this process, you need to reduce the color saturation by the end of image processing. Then the color again approaches the natural one.

This post was edited by rpanin - 12/27/2007 18: 47

As for the subtlety of color reproduction, I think every amateur is ready to prove exactly the "naturalness" of their images, which they were able to transmit exclusively by selecting the shutter speed and aperture, converting from RGB to CYMK, combining and adjusting the printer with the computer, etc. ...
I fully agree with the previous speakers, but one question is: how often do you have to rely more on the shade of a color when determining it, rather than on morphological features (the width of the psp, the width of the ndcr, the length of a segment of antennae or legs)?

Color ( and even more so shade) is firstly an unreliable indicator, and secondly, if we are talking about a shade , it is very difficult to convey it. And if the color also depends on the angle of incidence of the rays...
In general, about a slight change in shades - I'm loyal)
But morphological edits are too much...
One of the functions of "scientific" photography is to get the image as close to reality as possible. Of course, entomological photography has its own nuances, but in order to show some systematic signs, it is better to take several photos from different angles. And if the beetle is beaten, then it is better to take another one (especially if the instance is typical), but if the instance is unique , then, I think, everyone wants to see it in its natural state, and not drawn.

I perfectly understand the position of "non-interference" in particular the morphology of the photocopy of the beetle. But for some purposes and in some situations, this can be done, in my opinion. In my example (with tsimindes), there is a single beetle, which is not special, just never came across before. In the future, you may need a photo of him for an atlas of ground beetles in this area, mainly for students. Paper atlas will inevitably degrade the quality of the photo, and many defects on the right side of the body will distract the attention of already inattentive students.
Although, maybe these negative aspects can be leveled in another way. Then, I would like to see this work, learn from the experience (the original image is posted at the beginning of the topic).

2Adamov, in your case (if this is the only copy of the beetle and the only photo), nothing better could have been done. but in my opinion, for atlas, you need to take photos of higher resolution and in several copies under different lighting angles. If you change only the side from which the beetle is illuminated, then you can take two photos on one of which the right side is darkened, and on the second the left side and combine them (this is allowed in principle). And it is better to make images for processing not in GIF format, but in TIFF
, and of course it is better to look for a more beautiful beetle.
In general , with one photo of this quality, it is difficult to do something good. For the atlas, it is still better to tinker a little with the quality of the original image.
And so you did quite well.
Well, so for students in practice-one hundred percent will do.

In my opinion, no software methods can replace a person considering shooting bugs and buying a ring illuminator. Well, at least the second ordinary lamp to start with, you can try.
Discussed by the way here:
http://molbiol.ru/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t91847.html

This post was edited by amara-28.12.2007 14:29 by

When merging two halves, it is important to remember that ground beetles often have asymmetrical pores, in tarsiers this is very common, there is a pore on one elytra, and on the other there is no pore. And then in Photoshop, you can make such a mess...

When merging two halves, it is important to remember that ground beetles often have asymmetrical pores, in tarsiers this is very common, there is a pore on one elytra, and on the other there is no pore. And then in Photoshop, you can make such a mess...

I just wanted to talk about Amara nitida, which usually has two symmetrical scutellum pores, but the shape is completely without pores or with one pore (on one elytra) It has also become very common in the Middle Band of Heb. Russia (in the "green" it is not yet given, Isaev has it) confusing newcomers when determining.

Шановні Ентомологи.

How many sites are dedicated to high-quality photography and scanning of insect collections? Countless of them! But most do not pay attention to them Look at the photos and scans of the pros-the soul rejoices Sorry, but I'll be honest - some photos and scans want the best in quality, although the butterfly is straightened diligently and efficiently, but her photo is unsuccessful.
Do you really spend a lot of time searching for a rare species ' habitat, catching it and spreading it, and not spend a little time photographing it?

After redoing a bunch of photos, I came to the conclusion that scanning is the best option. Here you do not need to suffer with lighting, hand trembling, etc. etc. You just need to take a piece of foam, cover it with white paper (so that when scanning there are no speckles from the foam), put thick needles on the sides (so that you can adjust the height of this structure, because the paper should be 5 centimeters higher than the insect) and pricking on this design komashku forward WITH scanners recommend Epson Perfection with the ability to scan three-dimensional objects (the price is about 100 killed raccoons). The only thing you need to fight is the dust on the scanner glass and the correct location of the insect. It is most successful when it is possible to put a lump on the glass without deviations, most often you have to remove it almost completely from the pin, leaving only the tip of the needle in the body of the insect and stick it in the foam so that there is a minimum gap between the scanner glass and the insect
But do not forget about the camera-most often they have to take pictures of the collections of friends. In this case, take care of 2 lamps (preferably incandescent 100-200 W), put them on the sides (preferably slightly above the level of the insect (although when-how - here-experiment ). Secure the camera with a clamp (such a thing, like a vise, to which you can attach the camera and fix it on almost any surface, from old cameras it is best, the price is up to 2-3 CU), because it is not easy to hold in your hands, even if you have digital stabilization. If digital - put the white balance on artificial lighting from incandescent lamps and the aperture is as small as possible - 8-16 (this is so that the depth of field is as large as possible, then the butterfly will come out clear even if the wings are bent, etc. etc. You can even light up the photo a little (so the sharpness is better, but not always successfully), if you use auto-settings then use the landscape or documents mode.

So experiment. The only thing I don't recommend is thin scanners - they almost all distort the image already at a distance of 3 mm from the glass and cameras with small lenses - they have a small aperture, and no matter how much lighting you give them, the photos still come out dim

I'll add some more tips in the future.

Далі буде.

I can not understand:
"most often you have to remove almost completely from the pin"
And then what will happen to the copy, soak and straighten? And how to remove the pin from a dry copy without damaging it? You can either keep a copy or a photo.
Or is there something I don't understand?

Yes, it also seems to me that removing a bug from a pin is not always easy without damaging it. Who knows how to do this, please teach me.

By the way, like on http://babochki.narod.ru/ the author scanned all the butterflies...

Manufacturers of scanners do not always specify the depth of field ( or almost never), this parameter has to be found out from sellers when buying, if they are of course aware. As for the scanning of impaled specimens, I have heard about this, but unfortunately I have not seen such scans. Most authors still remove the copy from the pin, and this is often fraught with consequences, not everyone will decide on this. So most of the scans are made from freshly frozen copies. For more detailed methods of scanning insects, please visit ZIN.

Well, what about freshly frozen butterflies? They are not fixed!

From scanners, I recommend Epson Perfection with the ability to scan three-dimensional objects (the price is about 100 killed raccoons).

Read out the entire list, please!

What photos can be considered bad?? If the ekz is photographed quite clearly, the color does not deviate much from the true one, then in my opinion the photo is good.. View, for example, photos from molbiol.. Maybe we should just stop worrying so much about quality, or is there really a problem somewhere?

Good day.

Thank you for your questions.

1) Regarding the removal of insects from the scanning pin - here I recommend only caution, if you can not easily remove it-do not take any risks-it is better to take a photo. When photographing, make sure that the sharpness is well adjusted, and the macro mode is set if the subject is very small.
You can try scanning if the insect is no further than 1 cm from the end of the pin, but if it is further away, do not try scanning - the image will not be clear enough.

2) Berlov's website confirms the excellent quality of the scans. Therefore, it is often necessary to remove komashek from the pin with risk. Unfortunately, some entomologists often stick insects to a needle for greater stability - do not try to do something here, take a picture instead.

3) As for the list of scanners - a little later I will post 2 models that I successfully use.

4) Regarding the quality of photos - you often have to take photos in inappropriate conditions that you may never see again - here the criteria are not so high, if you take photos at home, then why not make the images as high as possible - after all, there are similar types that are difficult to distinguish, which are determined by small details, etc. etc., and the better the photo, the easier it is to identify the comashka.

As a rule, I scan butterflies, and I'll post some photos in the near future.

As promised, I upload some scans.

On this scan - mottled sappho (Neptis sappho).

This post was edited by Ekolog - 23.01.2008 15: 44

Pictures:

img224_2.jpg — (35.95к)

Exotic from the south of Ukraine-Acherontia atropos.

This post was edited by Ekolog - 23.01.2008 15: 45

Pictures:

img215_2.jpg — (23.49к)

And in addition, a few more field photos. Fotik-Olympus SP 510 UZ - not a soap dish, but not a pro either. If you want, you can learn how to take great photos on such equipment.
When photographing live objects, the main thing is patience, slow movements, good lighting and good luck ...
In the photo-Forest thick-headed (Ochlodes venatus), snapper (Hamearis lucina) and Southern Russian tarantula.

This post was edited by Ekolog - 23.01.2008 15: 53

Pictures:

2.jpg — (39.3к)


3.jpg — (30.63 k)


P9036779_2_s._Mogryzja_2.jpg — (79.28к)

And this is a photo with an ordinary digital camera using an 8x magnifying glass. I took out an old magnifying glass (diameter about 3 cm), and decided to try to take a few pictures - the main thing was to put the magnifying glass as close as possible to the lens and forward Minus - you can scratch the lens (I advise you to glue the edges of the magnifying glass with a soft cloth or rubber), when photographing, a lot of light is required and komashka is difficult to keep in focus (here, if desired, you can also starve a little). But if it does, then a dinosaur comes out of a small bug.
Very small insects in collections can be photographed by putting the lens of the camera to the eyepiece of a binocular or microscope - here the most successful photos come out without any preparation from digitalists with a small lens - you just need to put the lens over the eyepiece and that's it .

In the photo, a representative of the leaf-eating family and an American cicada (later I will post Latin names).

This post was edited by Ekolog - 23.01.2008 16: 06

Pictures:

PA058687_2_Roganj_2.jpg — (42.43к)


PA058761_2_Roganj_2.jpg — (20.87к)

In my opinion, for beetles, photos are preferable to scans, because these objects are raised and voluminous. Moreover, when photographing, you can highlight the object well. You can't adjust the light on the scanner.
If you have a good camera, and even a macro nozzle + ring illuminator - no scanner was lying nearby. And flat objects, such as butterflies, can also be scanned.

As for crawlers - I looked at the sites and was amazed - my scanner is not just outdated, but already "petrified" .
From what I found, I recommend Epson Perfection 3490 and 4490 Photo and later. For comparison, my brand scanner is still 2480, but I'm not complaining. I think that all the scans from the Epson Perfection series have retained the ability to scan three-dimensional objects.

This post was edited by Ekolog - 23.01.2008 17: 21

I have long seen scanning tips on Berlov's site dedicated to the butterflies of Lake Baikal, and they also recommend the ZIN site.

This post was edited by Ekolog - 24.01.2008 14: 44

Earlier in the text, I recalled the clamp - for clarity, I post a photo of it.
If you buy, be sure to check whether the thread is suitable for screwing on your camera.

Pictures:

3.jpg — (34.7 k)

Earlier in the text, I recalled the clamp - for clarity, I post a photo of it.
If you buy, be sure to check whether the thread is suitable for screwing on your camera.

Why reinvent the wheel when it has been used for a long time!?
A mini tripod for a camera, with the ability to change the angle of the camera, costs 200-300 rubles. And shoot your collections to your heart's content. Using some kind of clamp is equal to going to the store for bread on a Kamaz truck.