Chalcid wasp thumbing a lift

JRsbugs · #1 (**permalink**) 29-10-2009, 02:59 AM

Hi, a bit of fun...

I doubt I will get an ID for this little beauty, it landed on my shirt today so I let it climb on my thumb. I took pics with one hand at the closest setting with 105mm micro lens and 2x teleconverter. As it was only about 1.5mm long, and kept walking, I didn't get the best pics but I thought it was funny and you all might like to see my huge thumb.

Thumb nail actually only measures a little over 1/2" wide, and not all is in view. Click on the pic again once enlarged and you will get an idea of how much magnification there is, put your thumb in front of the pic too!

Janet

bonitin · #2 (**permalink**) 29-10-2009, 11:58 AM

What a lovely little wasp, it looks like a polished jewel!

Bruce Williams · #3 (**permalink**) 29-10-2009, 12:09 PM

He seems quite at home on your thumb Janet

. Must say you did well getting those pics at such high magnification with just one hand left to hold the camera.

Bruce

JRsbugs · #4 (**permalink**) 29-10-2009, 02:10 PM

Yes they are very pretty little wasps bonitin, seems I have a lot of these! Once I would not have know what they looked like without being able to capture them at high magnification, I doubt I would have even noticed it other than thinking it was a small gnat type fly.

Now I have a trained eye and can often recognise it's at least a wasp!

Thanks Bruce, now I'm not so sure if I didn't have the setting on the 1.1 which is only a little off the full magnificaton but can be slightly easier to get with a moving insect. Unfortunately I can't tell from the picture properties as being a fixed lens it always shows it as full focal length even if you have to focus at different distances! Maybe there's somewhere else to look for the info, but since I downloaded Windows Vista Live and my ordinary Pictures was taken over by that I don't seem to have the same info.

I do a lot of single handed shooting, when I have to lift a leaf and/or it's windy, you can shoot like gauging the passing ducks at a fair ground, when in focus briefly hit the button! You will know yourself that when the shutter goes off you can tell if it's in perfect focus, you can see the crisp lines.

I have another small wasp about the same size I took which I found in a single spiders strand, a beautiful emeral green one with red eyes. It ended up on the back of my hand and needed to have a clean up so I managed a better shot, I was near the wall so could at least rest my fingers on that where with this one I had to hold both hands steady! The pores on my hand look like deep trenches and I can't see any hairs on the back of my hand but it used one as a prop for it's leg! I'll have to load it up later for you to see.

ChrisR · #5 (**permalink**) 29-10-2009, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

Maybe there's somewhere else to look for the info, but since I downloaded Windows Vista Live and my ordinary Pictures was taken over by that I don't seem to have the same info.

It's a little OT but I use the free FastStone image viewer and that shows EXIF information

Dutchess · #6 (**permalink**) 29-10-2009, 03:56 PM

What a tiny little gem of a thing!

Beautiful!

D.

JRsbugs · #7 (**permalink**) 29-10-2009, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisR

It's a little OT but I use the free FastStone image viewer and that shows EXIF information

Not OT at all Chris, as I brought it up anyway!

Thanks for the link, I will see if it downloads OK, Windows Live seems to block some programmes.

I can get basic info with a right click on the pic, but I think there should be more.

JRsbugs · #8 (**permalink**) 29-10-2009, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutchess

What a tiny little gem of a thing!

Beautiful!

D.

Yes it is Dutchess, it makes the mind sort of boggle at the size comparison doesn't it!

JRsbugs · #9 (**permalink**) 29-10-2009, 10:26 PM

This is the emerald chalcid wasp which was stuck in a spider's thread. I know this was taken at the full magnification, I feel sure the one above was at 1.1 (I think that is distance of 1.1 feet as opposed to 1 foot from the camera not the lens).

This was again approx. 1.5mm but looks bigger when enlarged to the full. The blurred pic is when it was taking off, but it shows my deeply creviced hand with the wasp's foot using a fine hair as a prop, lol. I think a little size is lost when uploaded here too.

Bruce Williams · #10 (**permalink**) 29-10-2009, 11:18 PM

Considering the minute size, high magnification and awkward shooting situation you've done a remarkably good job with these last two images.

Going back to your earlier comment about working out subject size. I find this quite frustrating at times myself as although the EXIF data provides info on focal length, that alone is not enough to calculate the size of the subject, You also need to know the point of focus.

Nowadays (unless the subject is too large) I always shoot at closest possible focus (manually set). I have a set of scale bar images prepared from shots of a ruler taken at closest focus - taken with just the 105mm Macro lens and also with every possible combination of Kenko extension tubes. These work fine as long as I know for sure that I'd set the lens to closest focus.

Of course at closest focus I can also do a simple calculation based on the ratio of subject size to sensor size.

The problem comes of course with larger subjects where I've had to move back from my subject. I pull back and refocus without thinking and only when it's too late realise that I should have also taken a quick shot of a ruler (even though I have one with me at all times).

Bruce