Australia, Northern Territories

Photo 11 there's a bug or bug in the frame at the top...
Number 5-female
Number 10-looks like a male.
The rest of them later, if I can sort anything out.

I would still not recommend taking them by hand.

I won't use my hands, I'm afraid of them. I hope that none of them will go on the attack if they really get tired of me.

If you can ask me a couple of questions:Do you still use the same technique with tamron 90mm glass?

Yes, the technique is still the same-Nikon D700 + Tamron 90 mm. Sometimes Nikon D70s + Tamron 90 mm.

Photo 11 there is a bug or bug in the frame at the top...

Bedbug, I showed them, there was a "meeting of bedbugs" and they were literally everywhere.

  
Number 5-female
Number 10-looks like a male.

Thank you.

No, the photos are excellent for determining the species, if at all possible by "external signs", not looking at the genetalia. I'm not an expert, and I don't know much about Australian spiders.
It's just that the males and females of this family are very similar. It is quite possible that they are distinguished by color or body shape, but I can hardly reliably determine this. I look at these "antennae" - pedipalps, in males they are enlarged and devoid of hairs from the opposite side (from below), but from this angle it is almost impossible to photograph without disturbing the spider (you can clearly distinguish between numbers 10 and 11).
Yesterday, I didn't look at all the photos well, but only on the forum, on full-size photos, much becomes immediately visible.

I have photographed wolves and imagine that it is very difficult because of their mobility. And it is even more difficult to take photos so that the sexual characteristics are clearly visible. Perhaps the most problematic family in this regard.

They do not attack themselves, but large ones can bite if disturbed.


From the photo angle of the jaws and eyes, the head of the spider (like photos 9 and 11), it is relatively easy to determine the gender.

That's what I thought about the bug, but I wasn't wrong.

Number 5 is very similar to a member of the genus Lycosa, but since wolf spiders are very similar, I can't be sure.

It is also noticeable that males are smaller than females. The size of their abdomen is often smaller than the size of the cephalothorax. But this is not reliable, as an additional check for enlarged pedipalps at the ends.
I'll define it further:
2 - male
7-female?
8-male
9 - male
11 - male
12 - male

  

If you have any other questions, please ask them

I hope it doesn't hurt topic
1.since jpega is not enough, why tiff and not rav?
2. actually asked about Tamron, because I plan to get a Nikon 60mm. But why pay more) looking at your result( even though you don't process it).Do you have any experience with the Nikon 60mm?
3. how does it live on the d700, compared to 70?

No, the photos are excellent for determining the species, if at all possible by "external signs", not looking at the genetalia.

Yeah, good.

  
They do not attack themselves, but large ones can bite if disturbed.
From the photo angle of the jaws and eyes, the head of the spider (like photos 9 and 11), it is relatively easy to determine the gender.

So, of course, we don't pull our hands to the spiders, we don't try to stroke them. I've learned it!

  
From the photo angle of the jaws and eyes, the head of the spider (like photos 9 and 11), it is relatively easy to determine the gender.

That's what I thought about the bug, but I wasn't wrong.

Number 5 is very similar to a member of the genus Lycosa, but since wolf spiders are very similar, I can't be sure.

It is also noticeable that males are smaller than females. The size of their abdomen is often smaller than the size of the cephalothorax. But this is not reliable, as an additional check for enlarged pedipalps at the ends.
I'll define it further:
2 - male
7-female?
8-male
9 - male
11 - male
12 - male

Thanks!

I hope it doesn't hurt the topic

Still, there are no new images yet.

although I thought you don't process it.

I believe that image processing is almost necessary, because the camera produces a semi-finished product, and the photographer's task is to bring it up to standard. It's just that they used to crop and print in a dark room, now they do post - processing on a computer, but the meaning remains the same - to develop the image, place accents.

Sometimes, if the lighting is good and you're taking your time - for example, when shooting a landscape with a tripod or shooting a subject in a studio - you can even shoot in jpg format, but the conditions should be perfect. Most often, there are no ideal conditions, especially if you shoot small live insects at night. Therefore, I process (light/contrast, sometimes sharpness, color by points if necessary), crop better + convert.

Examples:

This is a "naked" converted frame.



This is also after processing.

Before processing.



After.

Before.



After.

Before.



After.

The difference between the images is quite noticeable, although, of course, the quality of the original image, in any case, remains decisive. If there is "something to do", then you can always get something interesting out of the frame by post-processing.

Yes, RAW and TIF images of insects with subsequent processing are preferable, because they contain more information that can be seen during "development". JPG does not provide such an opportunity, so if you make a mistake with the shutter speed or BB, then everything is a frame in the trash.

A moth flew into the room.

Xanthanomis fuscifrons (Walker, 1864) ©







Darwin, NT, Australia. March.

This post was edited by Ele-W-05.03.2011 11: 05

Darwin, NT, Australia. March.

Darwin, NT, Australia. March.

Darwin, NT, Australia. March.

I believe that image processing is almost mandatory

it is necessary,there is no dispute about this. But I didn't think that all this mass of images you find the patience to process.That's why I made a conclusion-maximum crop Thanks, in addition to objects-sometimes I admire the picture.

it is necessary,there is no dispute about this. But I didn't think that all this mass of images you find the patience to process.Therefore, I concluded-maximum crop

Here I am a bore and hard on myself - I pressed the button, please finish what I started. Or don't click the button! Time is my biggest problem right now, it is constantly not enough for everything I want and interesting.

Ele-W, you're a great photographer! But I can't agree with all the points.

I believe that image processing is almost necessary, because the camera produces a semi-finished product, and the photographer's task is to bring it up to standard.

I totally agree.
By the way, if I'm not mistaken, there was a separate topic on photographing insects and processing photos somewhere on the forum.

Sharpness can be obtained in many ways, but the "soft" image on many glasses can not be obtained.

On the windows-yes. However, you can always get a soft image by blurring it in the image editor. But the sharpness in the editor can only be increased visually. No more details will be added. But, of course, if you need softness, then it makes sense to initially photograph with a soft lens.

JPG does not provide such an opportunity, so if you make a mistake with the shutter speed or BB, then everything is a frame in the trash.

I can't agree. JPG files can also be processed within certain limits. Here, for example, is what I did with your JPG image of a spider, where the white balance shifted to red due to the reddish background.

After.

  
I can't agree. JPG files can also be processed within certain limits.

Exactly - within some limits. I said that the RAW and TIF formats allow you to correct some mistakes made when shooting, which JPG may not allow, there may simply not be enough information. Provided that the image is supposed to be post-processed in one way or another, it is more logical to shoot in full format than in truncated format. More freedom.

The spider can be made not only blue, but even green or purple , but what is the point of this action? In reality, I remember a pinkish-brown spider on the orange sand. So I showed it in my picture.

I was guided by the color of the blade of grass. In the original image, it has a reddish hue. I tried to make it green. But if your version is more correct, then I don't argue.

I was guided by the color of the blade of grass. In the original image, it has a reddish hue. I tried to make it green. But if your version is more correct, then I don't argue.

Do not forget that we have red dust everywhere, so there are almost no pure colors, everything has a reddish hue - stones, sand, grass, leaves on bushes, even the sea in a storm.





Red ochre is everywhere and everywhere. That's what they call us - Red Earth. However, in the Red Center, everything is even redder. I thought nothing would surprise me in terms of color, but on the dunes in the Red Desert, I hung for a long time - without words. Full sense of another planet.

Another butterfly flew into the lamplight.

Asota plagiata (Walker, 1854), family AGANAIDAE ©





Darwin, NT, Australia. March.

This post was edited by Ele-W-05.03.2011 11: 11

On the back of the sofa.



Darwin, NT, Australia. March.

Darwin, NT, Australia. March.

From the Arctiidae, apparently, something?

Asota plagiata (Walker, 1854), family AGANAIDAE, I did not know this, also thought it was a bear.

Somehow it is interesting to feelers on the head throws, reminds me ognevok. In general, there was a topic with photos of butterflies from Malaysia (Cameron Highlands), Alexey Yakovlev author - so there were similar ones signed as some scoops...

A moth flew into the room.
Darwin, NT, Australia. March.

Xanthanomis fuscifrons (Walker, 1864)

Aganainae is probably still a subfamily of scoops (or erebids, if we take them as a family)

http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/agan/aganaidae.html : Sometimes this is listed as a sub-family of ARCTIIDAE,

Xanthanomis fuscifrons (Walker, 1864)

Thank you.

Asota plagiata (Walker, 1854), family AGANAIDAE, I did not know this, also thought it was a bear.

Thanks!

I wouldn't have noticed the beetle if a moth hadn't landed nearby for a moment.
Darwin, NT, Australia. February.

Pericyma cruegeri (Butler, 1886)

A moth flew into the house.

Ramadasa crystallina (Lower, 1899)