Australia, Northern Territories

I found this one on the site that I mentioned above in NOLIDAE of Australia
, Characoma vallata (Meyrick, 1902)
Is it?

Yeah, I found it there. It seems similar to me, but many such gray moths seem to me" on the same face", unfortunately, so I don't even try to determine it myself.

You won't
have to wander around the family for a long time, and the benefits will be great

So it is necessary to understand the issue, and I only understand photography equipment. To understand everything at a good level - anrial, so I have only photos.

The second drowned man. I don't even know - is it a fly?

What kind of fly is it if it has four wings?

The second drowned man. I don't even know - is it a fly?

This, of course, is NOT a fly, but a hymenopteran. More precisely, a burrowing wasp from the genus Pison [Crabronidae, Trypoxylini]. There is almost no chance to determine up to a species from a photo, since there are several similar species with a red belly in Australia.

Can you not throw away such finds, but, if necessary, give them to me, for example, at the Moscow State University Pet Museum? However, with Australia, this may not be easy - local laws are harsh...

What kind of fly is it if it has four wings?

I never even thought about it! But it's true that an ordinary fly has two wings, oh, sorry.

This, of course, is NOT a fly, but a hymenopteran. More precisely, a burrowing wasp from the genus Pison [Crabronidae, Trypoxylini]. There is almost no chance to determine up to a species from a photo, since there are several similar species with a red belly in Australia.

Thank you very much!

Ele-W, you haven't seen any "big and scary" cockroaches yet, have you they there you should have it. It's a pity, of course, that the view turned out to be so banal.

"Flyers" are really bees, I strongly suspect that Amegilla aeruginosa, but since I don't know about the existence of twin species in this genus, let them be Amegilla sp.

A drowned ant that is an ant is really an ant, sort of a male, sort of from the subfamily Formicinae. Most likely, it performed its only function before drowning.

In the trash can - woodlice and mnogosvyazy.

This post was edited by INO - 02/14/2016 18: 10

So it is necessary to understand the issue, and I only understand photography equipment. To understand everything at a good level - anrial, so I have only photos.

You should buy / make a makrush kit, otherwise the insect photos are very far from the magnificent landscape ones.

insect photos fall far short of the magnificent landscape ones.

Have you reviewed the entire topic to make this conclusion?

No, I don't have enough time for the whole topic. I looked at a few previous pages, butterflies are quite good (although far from ideal), but for smaller insects, obviously, there is not enough magnification and resolution of optics. Even the 4-centimeter barbel (the best that is on this page) turned out not so hot - almost no pubescence and sculpture of the integuments are visible. In such cases, not only the aesthetics are lost, but also the very possibility of determining from the photo. Photos of e-mails on the last page are substandard (not only those that are on the soap dish on a hike, but also those that are in "laboratory conditions" with a default regarding equipment. No, for me, with my only slightly broken soap dish, such a result would be excellent, but since Ele-W positions itself precisely as a photographer, and takes photos clearly not in order to stick in a black-and-white magazine article as "evidence", but more for the sake of the photo itself and to share the beauty of the Austaralian living environment with the unfortunate Europeans deprived of them, the quality is far short.

Dmitrich, counter-question: have you seen her landscapes in the botanical branch? That's where you can really see what a talented photographer shot, it's fascinating. IMHO, and in photographing insects, it should strive for a similar level, otherwise it turns out disharmony. Here's another thing for me: what landscapes, what macro-from an aesthetic point of view, the same crap, corresponding to the level of equipment and the curvature of the hands, that is, complete harmony. But, in principle, I have never set aesthetic goals when photographing, only scientific and documentary ones.

But the main thing is different: As an Ele-W photographer, I'm clearly capable of taking better macro shots. Perhaps, with a relatively small financial investment in a new lens, and perhaps even without it, perhaps a macro ring or lens will be enough for her.

My criticism should not be taken as a reprimand, but as an incentive to take action to improve the shooting technique in order to achieve the same impressive results as with landscapes.

This post was edited by ENO - 02/14/2016 19: 47

Ele-W, I looked at the whole topic first and will make a clarification: you still have a suitable macro kit (or at least it was), but for some reason you used it less and less every year and at the moment you stopped altogether, which can not but upset. Only the GRIP is small there (as usual, in macro), and stacking is very desirable to get images that are suitable for you. Although this is a little more difficult than when all the parts of the beetle fit in one picture, the results are both scientific and aesthetic (but there is no dispute about tastes) points of view are much better.

Yes ushsh.. it's not even a funny clinical case anymore...

It is clear that for Pan Stepovoi with his homemade wunderwafle, the pictures even on the previous page are the height of dreams. A good macro performed by a pro (or advanced amateur) looks something like this: http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6214/128174...d74229_orig.jpg

Moreover, it was shot in one shot with a mirrorless camera, and as a lens, in the best traditions of pan, the "sovdepovskaya defense" contraption was used, which, they say, on a successful day you can bargain for a bottle of vodka at a flea market. By the way, in soap dishes it is also used as a nozzle, the size of the Olympus pan will just be. As I understand it, the vehicle's capabilities are much broader, so it's a real pity that it doesn't use them.

I apologize for the offtop.

This post was edited by ENO - 02/14/2016 21: 31

INO
Listen, what is your special feature - wherever you appear, everywhere to make a mess?
Isn't it clear that the topic of this forum thread is not macro photography? And your teachings to the author (who is an order of magnitude more professional than you in this matter) are inappropriate here? Calm down and go with your examples of super macro frames and speculations about wunder (confectionery) to the appropriate place.

Ele, I'm so sorry.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 02/14/2016 22: 33

  INO
Listen, what is your special feature - wherever you appear, everywhere to make a mess?
Isn't it clear that the topic of this forum thread is not macro photography? And your teachings to the author (who is an order of magnitude more professional than you in this matter) are inappropriate here? Calm down and go with your examples of super macro frames and speculations about wunder (confectionery) to the appropriate place.

And you read, Ino was still a person, if you believe the Greeks!))

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BD%D0%BE

Duc, what does it mean now, he's a female?

Ele-W, you haven't seen any "big and scary" cockroaches yet, have you they there you should have it. It's a pity, of course, that the view turned out to be so banal.

It's just as well that I haven't seen these hulks, because I feel safer without them. Still, butterflies and boogers are better than cockroaches.

You should buy / make a makrush kit, otherwise the insect photos are very far from the magnificent landscape ones.

Fair reproach, accepted. There is a set, but it's very confusing to use all this, I don't even remember when I got my makrushnye gadgets out of the box over the past two years, then one thing, then another, then just laziness and hot, a lot of excuses, but who needs excuses... I'll get better!

but since Ele-W positions itself as a photographer, and takes photos clearly not to stick in a black-and-white magazine article as "evidence", but to a greater extent for the sake of the photo itself and to share the beauty of Austaralian wildlife with the unfortunate Europeans deprived of them, the quality is very low.

Uh, well, as much as I'm not a macro photographer by profile, there is still a clear division by specialization and there are very few unique people who do everything at the same (professionally high) level-from genre and reportage to still life and macro, because this is almost impossible. Something turns out better, something is worse, something is not so-so, this is completely normal.

stacking is highly desirable.

Alas, here I pass. I tried to figure it out, but it's too technically difficult for me. So I can only admire those who are able to do it.

  INO

Ele, I'm so sorry.

It's all good. I can't help but admit that many of the accusations are true, not all of them, but many are. This is at least a reason to cheer up and get a box of macro gadgets out of the closet.

  INO
Listen, what is your special feature - wherever you appear, everywhere to make a mess?
Isn't it clear that the topic of this forum thread is not macro photography? And your teachings to the author (who is an order of magnitude more professional than you in this matter) are inappropriate here? Calm down and go with your examples of super macro frames and speculations about wunder (confectionery) to the appropriate place.

I, unlike you, do not create any discord, but, on the contrary, make constructive criticism. Here is Ele, I remembered that she has a box of macropribabas-is this a bad thing? I sort of suspect that Ele-W is an order of magnitude more professional than I am in photography, which is why I am not satisfied with the quality of the latest photos, because I could have done much better. But it would not hurt for you to reduce the degree of conflict.

Ilya U, don't smoke any more weed here at night, it won't do you any good. What other Greeks? INO is an abbreviation of my full name, which, by the way, is the same as yours. Let's get back to your " U " again.

Ele-W, What is the name of the woodlice in your photo, I have no idea. Only up to the suborder, by Pedivikia, will be Oniscidea. As far as I know, there are no specialists on crustaceans on this forum (although there are specialists on spiders and millipedes, which are also not insects). So if you want to define it more precisely, you probably have to go to some other place.

There's really nothing complicated about stacking a focus. There is at least one good free program for it - CombineZP, and several paid ones. Photoshop, by the way, also knows how to do this, but, they say, it's too bad. The procedure itself is simple to the point of outrage: we take a series of photos of one object by moving the focus (if it allows - using the camera, but usually just slowly moving the camera towards the object or the object towards the camera). To automate the process, there is a special device-macro-rails, but it is quite realistic to just use your hands. It turns out a stack, or in Bourgeois, a stack. The main thing is that each part of the object falls into the GRIP of at least one frame of the stack, otherwise it will not work. There are special tables and even programs for calculating the number of frames and the offset step, but it is easier to determine this by scientific poking. Next, open the stack in the program for stitching. On different frames, the object will get different scales and offsets, but that's okay, the program itself aligns and changes the scale. After that, we sew the insects together, preferably using the "pyramid method". As a result, we get one image where everything is sharp. Everything can be saved and sent to specialists for identification. But this is ideal. In reality, there may be artifacts, especially on far-from-ideal piles obtained in the field. The commercial stacking programs Helicon Focus and Zerene Stacker allow you to fix them by replacing the section with a suitable one from any frame of the stack, CombineZP can't do this, but you can open the images aligned with it as layers in Photoshop (or whatever you have there instead), and do the same. You can also sew it using several alternative methods (in Helicon Focus there are three of them, in Zerene Stacker - two, in CombineZP-dofiga), and combine the most liked parts. In general, the scope for creativity is huge. I won't show my ugly results made with a soap dish and magnifying glass (this is a good example for all sorts of South Ukrainian lens builders, but not for you), but the pros get something like this:


A source.

Another unique feature of focus stacking is the partial restoration of the three-dimensional structure of an object, which can be saved as stereo pairs (but I don't know how to watch them, with rare exceptions), or, for example, like this:


A source.

This animation, according to the author, is obtained in Zerene Stacker, but both Helicon Focus and CombineZP can also do this.

So go ahead and have fun!

This post was edited by INO-02/15/2016 19: 24

  
There's really nothing complicated about stacking a focus.

They made me laugh. In fact, this can only be said by a person who did not really try to do this cracking, but only read about it. Everything is very difficult there, even downright very difficult, especially if you build all your tripods, rings, rails, flashlights, remote laces and so on in the bushes in the heat of forty and wild humidity, everything fogs up, insects run away, and you are left alone like a finger with a ready installation in empty bushes, swam-we know And tracking requires a huge amount of post-processing, which I don't like and prefer to do in minimal amounts.

Well, I just understand very well what time resources I will have to spend on each high-tech photo that I can theoretically take. Unfortunately, this is too time-consuming and, in my case, pointless.

Be envious! This is too difficult for me, and most importantly - not interesting, alas.

A water spider. Theoretically, I knew that there were such things (once as a child I watched the popular science film how spiders build air nests and carry air bubbles there), but I never saw them live. I saw this one in a flower shop when I was catching tadpoles. At first I thought that the spider was just drowning and wanted to save it, but when it began to dive instead of running away from me, I realized that it wasn't just sitting in the pond with its head in the water.



Since everything is being re-equipped there and life will soon be gone, I took the tadpoles and the spider at the same time, too, caught and took away to myself. Now I am very interested in the question-what is it that lives in my garden, and most importantly-it does not bite? Is it not poisonous?

Oh, and one more question - what does it eat?

Dolomedes is an exotic place, but I don't know any Australian ones. Representatives of this genus feed mainly on insects that have fallen into the water, but they can also catch aquatic and terrestrial insects (well, spiders at one time), some catch fry and tadpoles. We also have a couple of species of dolomedes, quite impressive in size, but not so glamorous in color, they also dive in case of danger, or rather, quickly run away under water, clinging to plants. I don't know about bites. In theory, they may well be chelicerae, but against the background of all the other venomous creatures that you have there, you can say that this spider is completely safe.

A water spider. Theoretically, I knew that there were such things (once as a child I watched the popular science film how spiders build air nests and carry air bubbles there), but I never saw them live. I saw this one in a flower shop when I was catching tadpoles. At first I thought that the spider was just drowning and wanted to save it, but when it began to dive instead of running away from me, I realized that it wasn't just sitting in the pond with its head in the water.

by the way, spiders that carry air bubbles and build underwater domes out of them are called silverfish (Argyroneta aquatica)

Dolomedes bite very unpleasantly, according to the Internet. I don't know, perhaps they are confused with the aforementioned silver coins. Here they can definitely bite like a wasp or hornet, but it's not fatal. Another thing is whether there is an allergy to the poisons of these spiders...

Dolomedes is an exotic place, but I don't know any Australian ones. Representatives of this genus feed mainly on insects that have fallen into the water, but they can also catch aquatic and terrestrial insects (well, spiders at one time), some catch fry and tadpoles. We also have a couple of species of dolomedes, quite impressive in size, but not so glamorous in color, they also dive in case of danger, or rather, quickly run away under water, clinging to plants. I don't know about bites. In theory, they may well be chelicerae, but against the background of all the other venomous creatures that you have there, you can say that this spider is completely safe.

Thanks! So there should be enough food for him, all sorts of small animals in the pond and around-plenty. Under the chelicerae I will try not to substitute, just in case.

by the way, spiders that carry air bubbles and build underwater domes out of them are called silverfish (Argyroneta aquatica)

Exactly, exactly! The silver spider, I'd forgotten. After the movie, I then fervently argued to some friend of my father's that serebryanka was not such a paint at all, but a water spider. She flashed her knowledge.

Dolomedes bite very unpleasantly, according to the Internet. I don't know, perhaps they are confused with the aforementioned silver coins. Here they can definitely bite like a wasp or hornet, but it's not fatal. Another thing is whether there is an allergy to the poisons of these spiders...

Thanks! I'll try not to give the spider and me a reason to check if I'm allergic to its venom-distance and distance again.

News frogkariya-spider decided not to leave us and firmly settled exactly in the middle of the reservoir, in the roots of the plant. It looks like he likes it there.

At night, he changed the skin and now the skin hangs like a pirate flag on the trunk of a cyperus, and a shiny spider basks in the sun and greatly adorns the landscape. I hope that he will not eat my tadpoles, but will find something more delicious for himself.

At night, some large insect flew in to us, which looked like a grasshopper and something predatory at the same time (I forgot what it was called, but I already showed this predatory animal). The pictures will be available on Monday or Tuesday, and I'll try to make it as fast as possible.

Spider.

Raspy Cricket, Gryllacrididae, Mooracra sp.
Darwin, NT, Australia. February 2016



This post was edited by Ele-W-02/24/2016 01: 49

Darwin, NT, Australia. February 2016