Dicyrtoma fusca, frontal, Netherlands
Frontal 5:1 crop view of Dicyrtoma fusca. This species is characterized by its overall dark red/purple appearance. Furthermore, it is relatively large compared to other commonly found species such as Dicyrtomina ornata. I didn't measure this one, yet to a layman like me it seems about twice as large as Dicyrtomina ornata.
Dicyrtoma fusca is globular Springail (Collembola: Symphypleona) in the family Dicyrtomidae. It is a very variable species with colour variants that can look deceptively like species from other genera.
Similar species: Symphypleona
By Ferdy Christant
All rights reserved
Uploaded Nov 29, 2020. Captured Nov 27, 2020 14:51.
comments (6)
Unfortunately, my extreme macro lens does not transfer proper EXIF, but from what I recall I really pushed the aperture, to either f/8 or f/11. Which leads to an absurd effective aperture of something like f/f60 - f/90. Normally, advise for the lens is to not go beyond f/5.6, it really gets awful beyond it, but there's little choice here.
So the combination of not using maximum magnification (this one could be 3.5:1 as an example) and pushing to f/8 or even f/11, is what gives a relatively deep depth of field. Then crop back in if the photo is sharp enough, to give the illusion it was 5:1.
Yet I have one more trick up my sleeve, will discuss that one in the next comment. Posted 4 years ago, modified 4 years ago
...has a subtle bait in it. As in, really really subtle. I was waiting for somebody to spot it. And you were getting warm, although it was on the wrong photo :)
If you've seen springtail photos at this magnification or have taken them yourself, and inspect that photo closely...it seems to have an unusually large depth of field. It's not absurd, yet looks "off" compared to normal results in these conditions.
75% of that effect is due to what I just explained: push aperture to the unreasonable, reduce magnification, crop back in. This only works with enormous flash power, as in max power.
Yet on that particular photo, I used something else too. It's Topaz Sharpen AI. This software tries to correct fuzzy problems in one of 3 modes: just Sharpen, Stabilize (camera moved), or Focus.
This last mode, Focus, is insane. Basically it tries to bring back into focus something that is out of focus. Now don't get too excited, it isn't going to spontaneously invent details of some out of focus background. Instead, it works on a very fine balancing point. Simply put, something that is about 80% in focus, will be "uplifted" to look like 100% in focus.
As an example, an antenna with 6 segments, only first 2 in focus. Segment 3-6 are soft. This software may bring back in focus the 3rd segment, yet not 4-6. It will sharpen/fill in the soft 3rd segment using AI. Sometimes it works amazingly well, sometimes it fails completely.
So on the above photo, I actually put it through that program 3 times. This has grown the perceived DOF by 25%. It's enormously time consuming. I have a beast of a PC yet this software is absurdly slow. And after each run you have to clean up artifacts.
I don't plan to use it often, it was an experiment. The thing I really was going for is their denoise algorithm, which is pure magic.
If you want, you can email me some springtail photos and I can check what I can do with them. Don't expect wonders but sometimes the effect is worthwhile.
It seems springtail photos are perfect for Topaz, by coincidence. What you very often see on springtail photos is that the animal or the important part of it, roughly is in focus. Yet still soft. That is precisely the hotspot for Topaz to work well. Posted 4 years ago, modified 4 years ago
Other than that, I can most certainly confirm the rest of your trickery. As a matter of fact my "standard" setup is turning the aperture to the max (or minimum, really), which is f 13.6 on my toy-camera and then flash the hell out of everything and then just play with reflectors and diffusors to get an acceptable lighting on the subject. Camera setting hardly ever changes. Shutter speed is mostly irrelevant, the result is determined by the short time and the intensity of the light.
And yes, the bloody Springtails tend to always come out a tad too "soft" *rolleyes* Posted 4 years ago, modified 4 years ago
As for your settings, my normal 1:1 field photography is similarly stable. I set ISO to f/64 and the only dial I use is aperture. I vary it constantly based on the size of the subject and my distance. Shutter speed in these cases is 1/60s to 1/250s yet not actively managed by me.
For higher magnifications, I actually don't really do photography in the field, thus far :)
What I absolutely hate about high magnification lenses is that they only are in focus at once particular distance. Completely different from my 1:1 lens, which focuses at anything, and is even an excellent portrait lens.
The other thing is auto focus. Unusual in the macro world, but I swear by it. My 1:1 lens has it. Using my thumb, I move the tiny focus cursor to the eye of the insect. Combined with continuous auto focus, it keeps the eye in focus even if I move slightly forward/backward. Then release or a few releases and it's almost always a hit.
Guess I'm spoiled. Posted 4 years ago, modified 4 years ago