Not the best shot: must have focused on the back/thorax whatever, instead of the eyes. Very late afternoon, hence weird ISO. Tripod and 100mm Macro were back in the car, so had to make do with the 55-300mm PLM handheld. If I had paid more attention to the info in the viewfinder, maybe I could have sacrificed some shutter speed for smaller aperture/better DOF.

[Tonytee]

In spite of what you see as flaws, I believe it is a very pleasing image. I like everything about it. Nice work. )

TT

[József]

I think it is good. You think of it as a portrait of a dragonfly.You don't need the big DOF

[eaglem]

Just a question as I noticed a bit of noise in the shot, do you use any Noise removing software such as Topaz DeNoiser or Noise Ninja as that would sharpen the shot making it look crisp?

[ToddK]

It is a very nice capture and only slightly out of focus on the eyes. Eaglem mentioned Topaz Denoise and Noise Ninja. I use Topaz and it does a great job of pulling out more detail and sharpening, particularly with images like yours.

[K2 to K50]

Thanks everyone for the kind comments.
@eaglem and @ToddK - I am not that into post processing, other than cropping. Budget prevents purchase of expensive Adobe software, and am a total novice at anything other than cropping, and some dubious attempts at experimenting with correcting some inexplicably underexposed shots now and then. I only have the Ricoh Digital Camera Utility, Irfanview, and Paint.net, but not enough savvy to which features do what and how to use them.

[Apet-Sure]

Like others have said, I think your image has good merits just as it is. I love the colors and pleasing bokeh. Like you said, I probably would have tried another shot with slower shutter/narrower aperture. I just got a KP a few days ago, it will do DOF bracketing. That would be fun to try. Assuming you shot at 300mm, your DOF at f5.6 will be very shallow.

I would say ISO 1000 is not at all weird for the KP. A member recently posted a shot of a clay pot he took with a KP set to ISO 10,000; it was remarkably good. My K-5IIs does quite well up to ISO 1600. I have the auto-ISO set on my KP to top out at 6400 for now.

I want all my nature shots to look like they came from National Geographic magazine. Of course, none of them do. You have a fine camera and highly regarded lens. With a little tweaking of technique you'll be grabbing shots you won't feel the need to apologize for. We are our own worst critics. To some degree that's good. We all strive to improve. But while we're looking for the Nth degree of perfection we overlook what is just a very pleasing shot to many people.

[Tonytee]

Thanks everyone for the kind comments.
@eaglem and @ToddK - I am not that into post processing, other than cropping. Budget prevents purchase of expensive Adobe software, and am a total novice at anything other than cropping, and some dubious attempts at experimenting with correcting some inexplicably underexposed shots now and then. I only have the Ricoh Digital Camera Utility, Irfanview, and Paint.net, but not enough savvy to which features do what and how to use them.

Hopefully I can offer some assistance here. You can easily download FastStoneimageviewer. It is a capable photo editor, is free to use and user friendly. Just go to

FastStoneimageviewer.com and choose the download version. Cheers, If you do get it and need some assistance, I am here to help.

TT

[LightSpeed]

The people telling you that this is an awesome pleasing image are not doing you any favors.
I read what you wrote about the other lens and tripod being in the back of the car, but that has nothing to do with the framing.
Typically you would not use a tripod while chasing these dragonflies down, anyway. Their vision is great and they detect movement very easily.
As far as post processing goes, it's great to get everything in camera when you can. Other times it's impossible.
Ansel Adams would have been THRILLED had someone walked up and given him a digital camera and a copy of adobe photoshop.
Oh, P.S. - do not take my message the wrong way

And one last thing. Why would you need a 1:1 macro lens for this shot on something as large as a dragon fly?
None of mine are shot with a 1:1 macro lens. It's not needed. Unless you want a big blob of in focus out of focus, very close up.
Focus stacking is nearly out of the question with these subjects. Unless you kill the animal, and some people do. If it means anything to you, mine were shot with a Tamron 70-200mm with a close focusing distance of 37.4 inches.

[József]

I agree the dragonfly is very fast and difficult take photo .That's why it's a joy to have a picture.Dear " K2 to K50" your picture is good.

[K2 to K50]

"The people telling you that this is an awesome pleasing image are not doing you any favors."

Read more at: Here's Lookin' at You, Kid! - PentaxForums.com

@LightSpeed: Nobody, and especially myself, has come anywhere near using the word "awesome" or any of its synonyms. Flaws have been acknowledged, both by myself and others, not the least being the eyes are out of focus. At the time of taking the shot I thought I was aiming at the front of the face - but obviously not. It was very annoying to find I had the focus behind the head. This is where a tripod might have helped, as the dragonfly was co-operating and staying in position for quite a while (a slight breeze blew the blade of grass he was on around a bit, but.......). I leaned over, kneeled, and eventually even sat on the ground, knees up, elbows on knees, trying to still the wavering image in the viewfinder. But at 76, with focal length at 300mm and being less than 2 feet from the subject - well, I obviously I still missed it. And I know it.
I read what you wrote about the other lens and tripod being in the back of the car, but that has nothing to do with the framing.

Now, here's where your approach to "commenting" fails: you have implied a general criticism of the quality of the photography in your first comment, but no specifics. Now, framing - but what framing, of the final crop,displayed here, or the original image (accessible by clicking on the image here)? But regardless of which, to imply poor framing, without saying where the framing is poor or how it could be adjusted, or how it should have been - not useful, nor constructive. I have seen other posters have criticised framing of this or that photo, but in general they have included what they feel should have been included or excluded, or suggested the pic could have better by being taken at a different angle.

Don't get me wrong, I am not taking any offence here - but I am pointing out why, in my view, your approach to commenting comes across as aggressive and non-constructive, rather than sincere and helpful. As opposed to the comments by Eaglem, Apet-Sure, and Toddk who have all suggested some PP could reduce some noise, or have pointed out (what I already knew) re the eyes being out of focus. And Apet-Sure has helped by agreeing with me that (if I had been paying attention to the viewfinder info) I might have got a better result with a slower shutter speed and a smaller aperture (addressing the depth of field issue). But all you have said is, essentially, this is not an awesome picture, and the framing is poor. (Perhaps you see the problem with the framing as being self-evident and does not need explaining - but that is exactly where you go wrong in you approach to commenting. A negative comment without explanation can be seen as aggressive, unfriendly, destructive. I am not taking it that way, but that is the way this kind of commenting will be perceived.


Again, I emphasize, I am not taking offence, I am not angry or cheesed off here, I am not saying you should not comment - of course you should. But you need to re-assess your approach.

Typically you would not use a tripod while chasing these dragonflies down, anyway. Their vision is great and they detect movement very easily.

As mentioned above, I moved around a lot, taking a number of shots from various positions. I could, in fact, have messed around with a tripod (carefully, of course). One thing I have learned in observing dragonflies while trying to photograph them is that, even if you do disturb them and they take off, if you wait in your original position, they will often return to the same small area, even the same leaf or twig. Which often allows extra minor adjustments to tripod etc while you wait for them to return. This approach has worked for me on a number of occasions.

As far as post processing goes, it's great to get everything in camera when you can. Other times it's impossible.
Ansel Adams would have been THRILLED had someone walked up and given him a digital camera and a copy of adobe photoshop.
Oh, P.S. - do not take my message the wrong way

Yep, absolutely agree with this - and I am not technically challenged by computers, or computer software in general - spent my last 26 working years teaching people how to use computers, spreadsheets, word processors etc. Just have not got around to learning the technicalities of the host of tools available in photography processing software.

And one last thing. Why would you need a 1:1 macro lens for this shot on something as large as a dragon fly?
None of mine are shot with a 1:1 macro lens. It's not needed. Unless you want a big blob of in focus out of focus, very close up.

Because, while I am impressed with the autofocus and sharpness of the Pentax 55-300mm PLM, I believe my Pentax DFA Macro SMC 100mm F2.8 WR lense would have been sharper, and certainly easier to use hand-hold than the 55-300mm extend out to 300mm. With a smaller image from the same distance, I would have had to crop a lot, but no prob there with the KP and 24mp.

Focus stacking is nearly out of the question with these subjects. Unless you kill the animal, and some people do. If it means anything to you, mine were shot with a Tamron 70-200mm with a close focusing distance of 37.4 inches

Yes, I wouldn't even attempt focus stacking on a live subject. Have never used it al all, on anything, anyway, but my (very shallow) understanding of it is that it is more appropriate to street-scapes, landscapes etc, where a number of shots with slightly different focus points, are overlaid on each other.


But my not have the tripod was not because of this - it was because, on such a small subject, it would have made it a lot easier to steady the camera, and the focal point.

(Before you or anyone pipes up here about manual focusing - I just cannot any longer manually focus with any reliability, except on some shorter, faster lens. Even with the Focus assist beep and hexagon, I just cannot nail it. Probably partly due to 76 year old eyes, and partly sorely missing the microprism focusing I used when first taking on photography with my them 1970-something Pentax K2 camera. Have managed it with some success with my Pentax-M 1:2.8 28mm, Pentax-M 1:4 50mm Macro, Pentax-M 1:2 85mm but hopeless with my Pentax M F4 200mm or my 3 modern lenses}.

So, my friend LightSpeed, to sum up - yes, I fumbled the focus. My cropping and/or framing may be off, but you have not explained in what way. There may be other flaws I have not referred to - but again, nor have you been specific or clear about that either. But if you are going to tell people their photography needs much improving (and I know mine does) you need to be specific about what you see as being not right, and what was needed to make it right.

But you also need to consider that not all of us here post because we think we have achieved a masterpiece - despite all the flaws with this pic (and other pics I have posted in these forums) I posted it because, even with the flaws acknowledged here, I still thought it might have some interest or appeal to some viewers because of its subject, and to discuss my experience in taking the shot, and to see if others agreed with me when I made comments about how I feel I might have done better if..... etc. Some of us just like looking at photographs of insects (or birds, or flowers, or whatever) provided they are at least mainly in focus.

Goodness - what a ramble.

@Lightspeed, one last time - I have not taken offence, I am not "pissed off" at you, I am not wishing you would stop commenting - you are as welcome as anybody else to comment.

And again, I am very impressed by your Flight of the Dragon, second attempt post - amazing piece of photography!

[K2 to K50]

Being a glutton for punishment () I am going to add another shot I took of the same dragonfly (again, no tripod) and using the 55-300mm PLM lens).
Curious to see who thinks this shot is better or worse (or just more pleasing to view???) than the first - and why?




Again, like the first pic in this thread, this is heavily cropped. Clicking on the pick will take to the original pic on my One-Drive storage

[LightSpeed]

Ok I see. I was insensitive in my approach to try to help you. Well, let me start apologizing all over myself before I lose my job and facebook kicks me off.
I didn't think I had to mention what was wrong with the framing. When you put the head of the subject at the very bottom of the frame like he's about to do a nose dive out of the picture........did I need to explain that?
The Tripod: If you insist. If you have to have a tripod to steady your shot, then by all means. But, the KP has image stabilization. You're going to miss a lot of shots with your tripod because as you set up, the subject is gone. Again, and again.
Furthermore your tripod will not get low enough sometimes. Adjust shot angles becomes ridiculous. Instead of 8 or 10 shots, you get one or two, at the same angle. But hey, do it your way. What do I know?
Heavily cropped you say? Maybe you weren't close enough? Tripod would have helped you get closer?
Yes the second image is better , mainly because of the framing.
And yes you can manually focus. You just think you can't. Perhaps because you don't know how.
You have a focus assist beep. You focus in close........then move back and forth, instead of turning the focus ring. If your aperture is set correctly , ( which it wasn't in the first shot) it will make up for any slight error in focus. Another trick you can't do while using a tripod........unless you have a rail.

But you also need to consider that not all of us here post because we think we have achieved a masterpiece - despite all the flaws with this pic (and other pics I have posted in these forums) I posted it because, even with the flaws acknowledged here, I still thought it might have some interest or appeal to some viewers because of its subject, and to discuss my experience in taking the shot, and to see if others agreed with me when I made comments about how I feel I might have done better if..... etc. Some of us just like looking at photographs of insects (or birds, or flowers, or whatever) provided they are at least mainly in focus.

Yes I understand. You want to take pictures. Not practice photography. Got it.
I won't comment again.

[K2 to K50]

Ok I see. I was insensitive in my approach to try to help you. Well, let me start apologizing all over myself before I lose my job and facebook kicks me off.

Oh dear - sarcasm. Not a good sign.

I didn't think I had to mention what was wrong with the framing. When you put the head of the subject at the very bottom of the frame like he's about to do a nose dive out of the picture........did I need to explain that?

Oh dear again - condesension. I didn't put his head there - that is the way he was positioned. Silly dragonfly, he should learn how to model! And I don't speak dragonfly - so I couldn't ask him.

Should I have left a lot of empty space below him, so as to put his head more in the centre of the image? That doesn't sound like good composition. Wait, I know - I will use some of that PP i have heard about: I will flip him!!! There: sacred composition rules reign supreme once more!!

I wonder, is this the first pic of a dragonfly doing an upside-down hand-stand?

The Tripod: If you insist. If you have to have a tripod to steady your shot, then by all means. But, the KP has image stabilization.

I will resist the temptation to be sarcastic, and I won't say I didn't know about image stabilisation. Oh gosh, I just did. But I have seen, over and over again, recommendations that, where ever possible, use a tripod for macro work. And it would have been possible here. One of the main points about using a tripod for macro work is that it allows for a much slower shutter speed over and above what image stabilisation can give you (for reasonably stationery subjects) thus allowing a smaller aperture and greater DOF.

You're going to miss a lot of shots with your tripod because as you set up, the subject is gone. Again, and again.

Quite true - but the mantra is, .....where possible.

Furthermore your tripod will not get low enough sometimes. Adjust shot angles becomes ridiculous. Instead of 8 or 10 shots, you get one or two, at the same angle. But hey, do it your way. What do I know?
Heavily cropped you say? Maybe you weren't close enough? Tripod would have helped you get closer?

I can get my tripod down to about 3-4 inches if necessary. In fact I have posted a pic in this forum where I did just that - and the clever little moth stayed where it was, at ground level, the whole time it took me to do so. My son thought all my antics were hilarious and filmed it all on his iphone and cackled away for the next three hours!! But as I said, I have a thick skin.

Yes the second image is better , mainly because of the framing.
And yes you can manually focus. You just think you can't. Perhaps because you don't know how.

You have a focus assist beep. You focus in close........then move back and forth, instead of turning the focus ring.

More condesension. I know where the focusing ring is, i know it turns. DId you miss the bit about 76yr old eyes? And the bit where I did write that I know about the focus assist beep? I have read a number of posts in this forum, usually by older members, re having difficulty with manual focus. They, and I, are honest enough with themselves, and recognise this.

If your aperture is set correctly , ( which it wasn't in the first shot) it will make up for any slight error in focus. Another trick you can't do while using a tripod........unless you have a rail.

Conceded, my aperture in the first shot was inappropriate (see, I can recognise valid criticism - but wait, I actually mentioned that I recognised that at the very top of my first post - did you notice I recognised that?

A rail is a very good suggestion - I have actually considered buying one. Once again, I look at criticism or suggestions objectively, and accept logical ideas.

Originally posted by K2 to K50
But you also need to consider that not all of us here post because we think we have achieved a masterpiece - despite all the flaws with this pic (and other pics I have posted in these forums) I posted it because, even with the flaws acknowledged here, I still thought it might have some interest or appeal to some viewers because of its subject, and to discuss my experience in taking the shot, and to see if others agreed with me when I made comments about how I feel I might have done better if..... etc. Some of us just like looking at photographs of insects (or birds, or flowers, or whatever) provided they are at least mainly in focus.




Yes I understand. You want to take pictures. Not practice photography. Got it.
I won't comment again.

Again, the sarcasm and condesension. Smacks very badly of elitist snobbery. It seems you really do not know how to conduct a friendly critique without making it personal. I feel sorry for you. The back and forth of friendly opinions that this forum is so prized for seems beyond you.

If the moderators feel I should have confined these comments to a PM, or just ignored your post, then let me apologise in advance. I probably should have.

I believe I have been restrained in response to your posts. But I will not be offended if the moderators feel otherwise and if they redact all this. I am not asking that this be done - just saying, I will respect the decision if it is made.

[LightSpeed]

Nah I have pretty tough skin. Don't worry about it.

I remember a time when I reacted the same way. Only the criticism I took on was far more harsh than my trying to help you along.
I fail to discern why you feel you need to be coddled. I'm just as friendly as the next guy. I'm by far not an elitist.
That was cute flipping the image upside down but it's still framed wrong. lol
For some reason you feel like you're being attacked. You're not. I think you're an ok guy.
A moth may stay put, a dragon fly won't after you finish bumping everything around with the tripod.
Properly using focus assist and rocking back and forth will behoove you far more than a tripod when speaking in terms of macro, or in this case, semi-macro.
Yes even if your vision isn't 20/20.
The rules of composition are rules, not laws. But it seems you have a problem with pointing out composition. In this case yours was not good, but the bright side is you still got 6 likes.
And yes, composition matters, but sometimes a dead on middle of the frame shot looks better than a rule of thirds shot on an inflatable dinosaur with his butt sticking out of a car door.
As far are the tripod goes, again, the problem wasn't a slow shutter speed and high ISO, the problem was you didn't use a flash. Which would have eliminated much of this discussion around sharpness and depth of field.
But of course you already know this and I just have no idea what I'm talking about, That may be why flash wasn't used. Instead we're focused on reasons why the subject was out of focus, and depth of field lacked, severely.
I can recommend a flash at low cost that would have opened many possibilities for your shot. If you like. If you don't already have one.

Stop making excuses for this image. We all make mistakes, I've made more than you can count. Everybody gets a bad capture, not just you, and not just me.
But you're good and mad now aint you.
Good.
I suspect the next dragon fly will be much better.

EDIT: Are you kidding me with this flipping the image upside down and then complaining about the sacred composition rules? lmao. If nothing else , this was indeed funny. Next time try to photoshop the dragon fly with a cigar in his mouth.