Raining spit

Cephisus siccifolia 3rd instar nymph | Buenos Aires, Argentina

Even though it was November (and thus spring in Argentina), conditions were already unusually dry—a portent of the worst drought that would hit Argentina in 70 years. Because of this, I found the occasional wet spot on the pavement as I walked the trails in La Reserva Ecológica Costanera Sur rather odd. At first I thought they were spit—the trails were popular on this day for runners and bike riders, but I quickly realized that those would have to be some truly ginormous spit wads based on the size of the splatter. It wasn’t long before I thought to look up, and this is what I saw on the branch directly above me:

Cephisus siccifolia spittle mass on unknown species of tree.

I knew right away this was the work of a froghopper, or “spittlebug,” a true bug (order Hemiptera) in the family Cercopidae. Spittlebugs are common in the eastern U.S. where I live and are famous for the spit-like wads of froth (“cuckoo spit” to some) within which the nymphs conceal themselves until they reach adulthood. Our eastern U.S. species, however, are most commonly seen on herbaceous plants rather than in trees, and the frothy masses they produce are fairly small—about the size of a real wad of spit (at least, according to my direct comparison when I was 12 years old). The spittle masses I was seeing today were enormous, frothy, liquid masses that literally dripped from the trees by their own weight—raining spit!

Nymphs produce bubbles by siphoning air into a channel under the abdomen.

I was about to move on when I noticed some movement in the spittle mass. A closer look through the macro lens revealed the tip of the abdomen of a nymph slowly circling around near the surface of the spittle and creating new bubbles as it did this. As one can imagine, living inside a mass of bubbly liquid presents a challenge to breathing, and the nymphs get around this problem by protruding the tip of the abdomen outside the spittle mass and taking in air through a tubelike canal below the abdomen (Hamilton & Morales 1992). Strong contractions of the abdomen inside the spittle mass eject air from the canal, resulting in bubble formation.

Nymphs partially exposed by removal of spittle mass.

I sent these photos to Andy Hamilton (Canadian National Collection of Insects, Arachnids and Nematodes), specialist in world Cercopidae, to see if there was any chance he might recognize the genus or species based on these photos. I noted that these were the biggest spittlebug nymphs I had ever seen (the individual in the first photo measuring ~10mm in length). Not only did he recognize them as belonging to the genus Cephisus, but he was actually in the process of finishing up a revision of the New World members of the tribe Ptyelini—Cephisus being the sole New World genus to represent the tribe. Based on its white coloration and occurrence as far south as Buenos Aires, Argentina, he suggested this must be C. siccifolia—a species that can sometimes achieve economic pest status (Ribeiro et al. 2005) but which still apparently needs to be properly recorded from Argentina (Hamilton 2012). Based on degree of wing pad development, Andy surmises the individual in Photo #1 represents a 3rd instar (if the 3rd instar measures 10 mm, can you imagine the size of the 5th instars?!). Andy asked me if I would grant him use of the photos in his soon-to-be-published revision (of course I agreed), and here is the plate with the photos (as well as an adult photographed by someone else) as it appears in his paper:

As Andy notes in his paper, it seems rather unusual that Cephisus is the only tribal representative in the New World despite having successfully colonized all of its tropical and subtropical mainland areas. There are several other genera in the tribe in Africa, which would suggest that the Ptyelini arose prior to the late Cretaceous rifting that separated South America and Africa into two continents. It is thus puzzling why the tribe went on to further diversify in Africa but not in the New World.

A tight crop of Photo #3 above was featured in Super Crop Challenge #15, for which Ben Coulter was the hands-down winner. Honestly I thought this might end up being a slam dunk challenge—people have gotten very good at designing Google search strings to come up with answers that in pre-internet days might have been impossible to find. Nobody stumbled upon the magic search string for this challenge—”MacRae Cercopidae” which pulls up the Hamilton paper and above plate as the very first result. Still, Ben used good old fashioned intuition based on the locality tag to correctly surmise the species and take the early lead in BitB Challenge Session #7. Congratulations, Ben!

REFERENCES:

Hamilton, K. G. A. 2012. Revision of Neotropical aphrophorine spittlebugs, part 1: Ptyelini (Hemiptera, Cercopoidea). Zootaxa 3497:41–59.

Hamilton, K. G. A. & C. F. Morales. 1992. Cercopidae (Insecta: Homoptera). Fauna of New Zealand 25, 40 pages.

Ribeiro, G. T., M. da Costa Mendonça, J. Basílio de Mesquita, J. C. Zanuncio G. S. & Carvalho. 2005. Spittlebug Cephisus siccifolius damaging eucalypt plants in the State of Bahia, Brazil. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 40(7):unpaginated.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013

Best of BitB 2012

Welcome to the 5th Annual “Best of BitB”, where I pick my favorite photographs from the past year. 2012 was one of the most intensive travel years I’ve ever had—I spent 8 weeks in Argentina from February through April, made separate trips to Puerto Rico and Arkansas in May (bracketing a personal week in California), traveled almost weekly to Illinois and Tennessee from June to September (interrupted by a personal week in Florida in July), toured the southeastern U.S. (Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Georgia—great food!) in early September, chased tiger beetles in Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas in late September, went back to Argentina for a week in October, and capped off the travel year by attending the Entomological Society of America Annual Meetings in Knoxville, Tennessee (for the first time in more than 10 years!)—whew! While many would cringe at such a travel load, I am among the lucky few who actually get paid for doing something that is also my hobby—entomology! This gives me ample opportunity to further hone my photography skills (nine of the 13 photos I’ve selected below were actually taken while I was on business travel), resulting in two key accomplishments this year—my first ever photography talk at the ESA’s insect photography symposium and my first commercial sales (look for the BitB commercial site to go online in 2013).

Enough blather! Here are my favorite BitB photographs from 2012. Click the link in the text below the photo to see the original post. I would greatly appreciate knowing if you have a favorite (and why)—your feedback will be enormously helpful to me as I continue to learn and develop as a photographer.  For those interested, here are my previous year picks for 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. And, as always, thank you for your readership!

---

Spintherophyta (?) sp. in flower of Abutilon pauciflorum | Buenos Aires, Argentina

From Pollen Bath (posted 2 Feb). One of my 2012 learnings was that sometimes a photograph that is not so close is more effective than one that is as close as possible. In one of my earlier attempts at “not-so-close” macrophotgraphy, the soft colors of the flower compliment the brash shininess of the tiny leaf beetle that has been feeding on its pollen. Pink lines lead the eye directly to the subject and create a pleasing composition, and pollen grains stuck to the beetle—a distraction in some situations—add to the miniature natural history story of the photo.

---

Apiomerus flavipennis with stink bug prey and kleptoparasitic flies | Chaco Province, Argentina

From Lord of the flies! (posted 11 Mar). I selected this photo solely for the complex natural history story drama it shows—stink bug (Piezodorus guildenii) feeding on soybean becomes prey of an assassin bug (Apiomerus flavipennis), with volatiles from the chemicals it emitted in a vain attempt to defend itself serving as cues to kleptoparasitic flies (families Milichiidae and Chloropidae) that benefit from the assassin bug’s labors.

---

Planthopper nymph | Buenos Aires Province, Argentina

From Seeing the unseen (posted 26 Mar). Another learning that I began putting into practice in 2012 was the use of low perspective for compositional impact. The cryptic coloration of this planthopper nymph (family Fulgoridae) made it almost invisible on the branch on which it was sitting when viewed from a normal “top-down” human perspective. Getting “down under” it, however, brought the nymph to life and emphasized its unusual form.

---

Megabaris quadriguttatus | Corrientes Province, Argentina

From I fear no weevil (posted 12 Apr). I spent much of 2012 working on the “blue sky background” technique, with these weevils from northern Argentina representing one of my better attempts. Macrophotography of insects with a blue sky background involves setting exposure, ISO, and aperture to achieve two separate exposures—full flash illumination of the subject for maximum depth-of-field, and ambient light from the sky to create a clean, uncluttered, natural-looking background. In this shot I managed to achieve an almost ideal shade of blue to compliment the wild black, white and red colors of the beetles. (My one criticism of the photo is having clipped one of the beetle’s feet.)

---

Bombylius sp. cf. mexicanus | Scott Co., Missouri

From One-shot Wednesday: Upside-down bee fly (posted 16 May). This photo is unusual if nothing else. Focus, lighting, depth-of-field, and composition are all better than can be hoped for in a single shot, but the subject—perfectly alive—is in a most unusual position. Read the original post to find out how this happened.

---

Perisphaerus sp. (a pill roach) | Vietnam (captive individual)

From Holy conglobulation, Batman! (posted 27 May). White-box photography is an excellent technique for clean, uncluttered photographs of insects, but it also isolates them from their natural surroundings and limits their natural history appeal. The best white-box photos are those that highlight a key feature or behavior of the subject—in this case a pill roach’s comically conglobulating defensive posture.

---

Micronaspis floridana (Florida intertidal firefly) larva | Pinellas Co., Florida

From Even a 12-year old can discover the larva of a rare, endemic species! (posted 31 July). Here is another photo whose back story played a big part in its selection. This firefly larva not only represents a rare Florida-endemic species but was also first seen by my then 12-year old nephew, who willingly accompanied me through a dark, spooky salt marsh in the middle of a humid Florida night to see what he could learn. The lesson here for budding natural historians (and old-timers like me) cannot be overstated!

---

Arctosa littoralis (beach wolf spider) | Lewis Co., Missouri

From ID Challenge #20 (posted 23 Aug—prelude to Ghosts in the night posted 28 Aug). Those who follow this blog know of my obsession with close-up portraits, and while tiger beetles are the subjects I most commonly photograph in this manner, I am always on the lookout for good subjects in other taxa. This wolf spider “face” almost looks human, with “two” eyes, two “nostrils” and a shiny upper lip above huge (albeit hairy) buck teeth! It’s enough fill-the-frame spidery goodness to melt (or explode) the heart of even the most ardent arachnophobe!

---

Anticarsia gemmatalis (velvetbean caterpillar) egg on soybean leaf

From Life at 8X—Guide to lepidopteran eggs on soybean (posted 3 Sep). “Life at 8X” was a new series I introduced this year, featuring insects photographed at magnifications testing the upper limit of my equipment and photographic skills. Diffraction is the chief difficulty with magnifications as high as this and is the primary flaw in the above photograph. Nevertheless, such view of a moth egg on the underside of a soybean leaf provides a spectacular view of the otherwise unseen micro-world that lives right beneath our noses.

---

Megacyllene decora (amorpha borer) on snakeroot flowers | Mississippi Co., Missouri

From A classic fall ‘bycid (posted 12 Sep). This second example of “blue sky background” was taken later in the year and was considerably more difficult to capture than the first because of the larger size of the subject and resulting need for a longer focal length macro lens. Getting a well-lit, focused, and composed image with a desirable shade of blue in the background depended not only on finding the proper camera settings, but also secure body and camera bracing techniques for this completely hand-held shot.

---

Cicindelidia politula politula (Limestone Tiger Beetle) | Montague Co., Texas

From Photographing the Limestone Tiger Beetle (posted 28 Sep). I will go ahead and say it—this is my favorite photograph of 2012. As discussed under the first entry, panning back from the subject can allow for some very interesting compositions. This photo combines charismatic pose by a wary subject with panning back and low perspective to create an image that scores high in both natural history and aesthetic appeal.

---

Calosoma sayi (black caterpillar hunter) | New Madrid Co., Missouri

From Black is beautiful! (posted 7 Nov). Of course, close-as-possible can also be used to create striking photos, especially if the subject exhibits features that are best seen up close. Anything with jaws fits the bill in my book, and highlighting the mandibular sculpturing of this caterpillar hunter (a type of ground beetle) required precise angling of the flash heads for maximum effect.

---

Cicindela repanda (Bronze Tiger Beetle) | St. Louis Co., Missouri

From Persistence Pays (12 Nov). This final selection is not a rare species, but it is as close as I have come to what I consider the “perfect” tiger beetle macrophotograph—a close, low angle, lateral profile of an adult in full-stilt posture (a thermoregulatory behavior), well lit, perfectly focused, and with a dynamic but pleasingly blurred background. It’s a perfect storm of a photo that took the better part of two hours to achieve—rarely do all of these elements come together in a hand-held photograph of an unconfined tiger beetle in its native habitat.

---

Well, there you have it. I hope you’ve enjoyed my selections, and again please do let me know if you have a personal favorite. See you in 2013!

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2012

More Eocene insects

Most of the Green River Formation (GRF) insect fossils that I have on loan clearly represent either beetles (order Coleoptera) or flies (order Diptera). I’ve already shown a few of the latter (fungus gnat, midge), as well as some that don’t belong to either order (ant, cricket?). Here are a few more that seem identifiable to order, but family-level identification is less certain. Thoughts from the readership would be most welcome.

---

This fossil shows an aggregation of insects that I believe represent some kind of beetle. Based on shape and size (16.7 mm length) I’m guessing perhaps either a diving beetle (family Dytiscidae) or whirligig beetle (family Gyrinidae). These are both aquatic families, although only the former is among the beetle families recorded from the GRF by Wilson (1978).

---

There are two insect fossils on this specimen, but the closeup is the one near the center of the rock. It is tiny (3.5 mm in length), and at first I thought it might be a fly (order Diptera). However, dipterist Chris Borkent thinks it might be a small hymenopteran (bee?) because it has what looks to be long multi-segmented antennae. The only bee family recorded for the GRF by Wilson (1978) is Anthophoridae (now included within Apidae), of which this fossil clearly is not a representative. There are six other hymenopteran families recorded in that work, of which Tenthredinidae is the only one that seems plausible. Of course, it could represent a family not recorded by Wilson (1978). Collected along Hwy 139 in Douglas Pass (Garfield Co., Colorado).

Here is a closeup of the other fossil (far right in photo above). This looks to me like a brachyceran fly, and I’ve sent a high resolution version of the image to Chris Borkent to see what he thinks.

---

The label accompanying this fossil indicates “Mosquito (?),” but to my eye this looks like a true bug (order Hemiptera). It is small—only 5.9 mm in length—and has the gestalt of a plant but (family Miridae) or seed bug (family Lygaeidae). GRF fossils representing the latter but not the former were recorded by Wilson (1978). Also collected along Hwy 139 in Douglas Pass (Garfield Co., Colorado).

---

REFERENCES:

Wilson, M. V. H. 1978. Paleogene insect faunas of western North America. Quaestiones Entomologicae 14(1):13–34.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2012

Life at 8X—Bandedwinged Whitefly

Trialeurodes abutiloneus (bandedwinged whitefly) | Obion Co., Tennessee

The world of minute insects can seem strange and even bizarre when compared to our relatively giant perspective. To the unaided human eye, this bandedwinged whitefly (Trialeurodes abutiloneus), measuring only 1 mm in length, looks like nothing more than a fleck of dandruff. Through a Canon MP-E 65mm 1–5X macro lens with 68 mm of extension tube (resulting in 8X magnification), however, we see an almost moth-like insect with a decidedly adorable “face” negotiating the “trichome forest” of a soybean leaf under-side.

A more conventional 2X view of a whitefly infestation on the underside of a leaf

Whiteflies (order Hemiptera, family Aleyrodidae) are tiny insects (more related to aphids than true flies) that colonize a variety of host plants, often building to extraordinary numbers and densities while sucking juices from the leaves. The bandwinged whiteflies in these photos were seen in a soybean field in northwestern Tennessee this summer and can be easily identified as this species due to the transverse, zig-zag bands on the forewings (Malumphy et al. 2010). In the photo above numerous eggs can also be seen distributed over the leaf surface—a sign that this population is about to explode given the numbers of eggs present.

Zooming in to 8X allows the zig-zag wing pattern to be seen easily.

Whiteflies are an occasional pest of soybean in the U.S., but yield reduction has been documented only in the southeastern U.S. by another species, Bemisia tabaci (sweet potato whitefly). Whiteflies are also occasionally seen on soybeans in the Midwest by B. tabaci or yet another species, Trialeurodes vaporarium (greenhouse whitefly); however, yield impacts in this area are rare. Trialeurodes abutiloneus is occasionally reported from soybean, but this species is actually more commonly encountered on sweet potato and malvaceous crops such as cotton and hibiscus (Clower et al. 1973). There was a lot of cotton growing in the area of this soybean field, so perhaps this infestation was a result of spillover from that crop.

Piercing/sucking mouthparts are inserted into the leaf for feeding.

“Adorable” and “cute” are not words that I’ve ever associated with whiteflies, but these ultra-closeup photographs give them a personality that I’ve not seen before. For an even more astounding view of the face of a greenhouse whitefly, see this incredible 16X photograph by Huub de Waard. Taken with the same lens as these—though I suspect with a 2X converter rather than extension tubes, it shows an amazing level of sharpness compared to the admittedly soft photos in this post. The larger aperture used (f/6.3) may also be a better choice than the small f/13 aperture I used in an attempt to preserve as much depth of field as possible but with which diffraction is likely significantly greater. Stay tuned as I do some more testing…

A cute couple!

REFERENCE:

Clower, D. F. & C. M. Watve. 1973. The bandedwinged whitefly as a pest of cotton, pp. 90–91. Proceedings of Beltwide Cotton Production and Research Conference, 11–12 January, Phoenix, Arizona. Cotton Council of America, Memphis, TN.

Malumphy, C., A. MacLeod & D. Eyre. 2010. Banded-winged whitefly Trialeurodes abutiloneus. Plant Pest Factsheet, The Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera), 4 pp.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2012

Life at 8X—soybean aphid

Although my first attempt at adding extension tubes to my Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens, effectively converting it from a 1–5X to a 1.7–8.0X lens, was nearly a year ago, it has only been recently that I’ve actually started experimenting with this combination to obtain high-mag photographs of very small insects in the field. The first example that I showed of such a photograph was a tiny seed weevil (Althaeus sp.) on its hibiscus host plant. I’ve since photographed a number of other insect subjects at high-mag using this setup and am getting a better feel for the capabilities—and limitations—inherent in using it. First, here is what the setup actually looks like:

Canon 50D body, MP-E 65mm macro lens on 68mm extension, MT-24EX twin flash w/ DIY diffuser.

Not the normal photo quality for this site (just a quick field setup photographed with my I-Phone), but it shows just how long the lens component becomes when fully extended to achieve 8X magnification. The camera is quite front-heavy, making the camera difficult to use hand-held, and the very shallow DOF (depth of field) due to the extreme level of magnification makes precise focusing difficult and magnifies the effect of any motion between the camera and subject. Obviously, one solution for these problems is to mount the camera on a tripod and place the subject on a stable surface; however, for reasons I’ve mentioned elsewhere, it is unlikely that I will ever take to bringing a tripod into the field, and the whole point of this exercise is to develop the capability for getting usable hand-held field photographs no matter what level of magnification they may require. As an alternative, I use a number of other techniques, discussed in my prior post on the subject, to stabilize the camera without using a tripod.

One of the recent subjects I photographed with this setup is the soybean aphid, Aphis glycines (order Hemiptera, family Aphididae). This distinctive Asian species has recently established in the U.S. as invasive pest of soybeans; adult females measure only 1–2 mm in length (and the nymphs are even smaller) and can quickly develop very high densities on the leaves and upper stems of soybean plants. The following photograph was taken at the camera setup’s minimum magnification of 1.7X and provides a typical view of adult aphids and their progeny:

Aphis glycines (soybean aphid) | Warren Co., Illinois

While the above photograph does a very good job of showing the colonial appearance of infestations by these aphids on soybean foliage, what about the aphids themselves? It would be nice to get a better look at individual aphids. The following photographs were all taken with the lens fully extended to achieve 8X magnification (and completely hand-held):

Adult female aphid—note the eye spots of the unborn nymphs visible within the body.

Another adult female navigates the hairs on the surface of the soybean leaf (I never knew soybean leaves were so hairy!).

A mother surrounded by her progeny. As above, eye spots of unborn nymphs can be seen inside her body.

These photographs are not without their problems—they are a bit soft, probably due to motion blur that results from the camera being hand-held and the extremely thin DOF that makes it difficult to get all of the desired components of the photos equally in focus. Lighting also is a challenge, as the very small subject-to-lens distance forces light from the flash to come from directly above or even behind the subject while minimizing front lighting (especially evident in the last photo with its straight down view). Nevertheless, these are decent, usable photographs that provide an uncommon view of these exceedingly tiny insects—without the encumbrance of carrying a tripod in the field, the time investment of studio photography and/or focus-stacking, or the expense of a microscope-mounted camera system (for those of us without access to such systems).

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2012

Sea Grape Flatid – Petrusa epilepsis

The argid sawfly Sericoceros krugii wasn’t the only insect I saw associated with seagrape (Coccoloba uvifera) during my May trip to Puerto Rico. While exploring the magnificent coastal sand dune system near Isabela (northwestern Puerto Rico), I encountered a tree with literally dozens of frosty, white “homopterans” on the reddish lower surface of its newly expanded leaves (the photo below shows them at only about half the density that I saw initially, as many became disturbed and left when I tried to photograph them). Clearly they were planthoppers in the superfamily Fulgoroidea, with their general shape wings held tent-like suggesting either the family Acanaloniidae or its close relatives in the family Flatidae.

Petrusa epilepsis adults on seagrape (Coccoloba uvifera) | vic. Isabela, Puerto Rico

A better look at the adults in the photos revealed the presence of numerous parallel cross-veins along the costal margin of the forewings, placing them squarely within the family Flatidae (species of Acanaloniidae have reticulate forewing venation without the parallel cross-veins). Wolcott (1948) lists a dozen or so species of flatids from Puerto Rico, roughly half of which belong to the subfamily Flatinae (wings held tent-like) and the other half belonging to the Flatoidinae (more flattened insects with wings held almost horizontal). The likeliest candidate seemed to be Ormenis marginata, which Wolcott describes as occurring in the “millions, vast clouds of them flying up from seagrape plants that one may disturb around Isabela…” I can’t say I saw “millions” of them, but certainly they were abundant on this one plant. My identification was kindly confirmed by Neotropical fulgoroid Lois O’Brien, who also noted that this species now goes under the name Petrusa epilepsis Kirkaldy.

This seems to be a species that could cause considerable problems should it ever find it’s way to the mainland U.S. Many flatids are famously infidel when it comes to host plants—Metcalfa pruinosa (citrus flatid planthopper) being perhaps the best known example. Petrusa epilepsis not only feeds on seagrape but has also become a pest of coffee (Coffea arabica), coco-plum (Chrysobalanus icaco), jasmin (Jasminum spp. ) and black mangrove (Avicennia germinans), with damage resulting not only from direct feeding but also the development of sooty mold that colonize the honeydew excreted by the bugs that covers the foliage of the plants they infest (Nieves-Rivera et al. 2002).

A particularly amusing passage by Wolcott was his observation that adults “with care may be chased around a stem by gentle pursuit with a lead pencil.” I can add that a finger works equally well, as I used precisely this technique to get the adults in these last two photos positioned precisely where I wanted them for the photographs. Let’s hope they are as easily kept within their current West Indies distribution and are not eventually unleashed as yet another exotic pest for agricultural producers in tropical and subtropical mainland America to deal with.

REFERENCES:

Nieves-Rivera, Á. M., T. A. Tattar & E. H. Williams, Jr. 2002. Sooty mould-planthopper association on leaves of the black mangrove, Avicennia germinans (L.) Stearn in southwestern Puerto Rico.  Journal 26:141–155.

Wolcott, G. N. 1948. Insects of Puerto Rico. The Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico 32(1):1–223.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2012

Crazy Eyes

Spissistilus festinus | Stoneville, Mississippi

Spissistilus festinus (three-cornered alfalfa hopper) is one of the few truly economic pests in the otherwise bizarre and innocuous family Membracidae (treehoppers).  Its common name alludes to one of the crops it affects, but my encounters with this species are most often in soybean (I am, after all, a soybean entomologist).  Damage in this crop is caused by both adults and nymphs, whose piercing/sucking mouthparts cause girdling and breakage of the stem—often just a few inches above the soil.  This individual was seen during my travels last week in a soybean field in Stoneville, Mississippi, where numbers throughout the season were especially high this year.  Although I have seen innumerable S. festinus adults, I have never noticed their crazy, zig-zag patterned red and white eyes until I managed this closeup face shot (click on photo for best view).

This slightly cropped photo was taken with a 100mm macro lens and full extension tube set, resulting in slightly more than 2X magnification.  One of the lessons I took from BugShot 2011 was the need to pay more attention to background and value contrast.  By placing the subject a few inches in front of the dark green soybean foliage I was able to achieve a much more pleasing background than the typical black background one gets with full flash photos at high magnification.  Although both the subject and the background are green, there is still sufficient difference in shade to create contrast between them.  Light-green is one of the more difficult colors to work with when full flash is used with high shutter speeds and small apertures to maximize crispness and detail (in this case, 1/250 sec and f/16).  However, increasing ISO to 400 and lowering flash exposure compensation to -2/3 can reduce the amount of flash needed to illuminate the subject with such settings, making it easier to achieve a properly exposed and true-colored subject.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2011

BugShot 2011 – Lesson 2

Most of my insect photography is done up close using fast shutter speeds (to prevent motion blur) and small apertures (to maximize depth of field).  This necessitates the use of full flash – the amount of light reaching the camera sensor at f/16 and 1/250 sec is not enough to show any image at all, much less one properly exposed.  Full flash photography has its own set of challenges, but for the most part it can be used to produce excellent closeup photographs of insects, even very small ones.  One thing that has always bothered me about full flash photography, however, is the “black background” effect when photographing an insect sitting up on a plant without something else in the immediate background to reflect light.  Not that I don’t like black backgrounds—they can be used to stunning effect with the right subject.  I just don’t want it to be my only option for insects that I photograph up off the ground. Of course, it is rather a simple matter to place something in the background that is close enough to reflect light but far enough away to remain out of focus, but what I really want to be able to do sometimes is have a blue sky.  I always thought this meant natural light, with its low f stops, slow shutter speeds, and the resulting motion blur and loss of depth of field. 

Of the many things I learned today, how to include a blue sky background in a closeup photograph at f/16 was my favorite.  This is accomplished by bumping up the ISO to 400 (to make the camera sensor more receptive to light) and decreasing the shutter speed to 1/60 sec.  Keeping the f stop high maintains the depth of field, but the increased ISO and decreased shutter speed allows sufficient light from a sky background to register on the sensor.  By themselves, however, these setting will still result in an underexposed subject, which is illuminated instead by fill flash.  Despite the slower shutter speed, there is no motion blur because the “effective” shutter speed for the subject is the duration of the flash pulse rather than the camera shutter speed—it’s like combining two exposure speeds in a single photograph, one for the background and another for the subject.

The following three photographs illustrate this principle—again, they are not technically perfect photos, but rather the result of quick experimentation to understand the principles involved.  Photo 1 is from yesterday’s post and illustrates what my typical settings have always been: ISO 160, f/16, and 1/250 sec.  It’s a decent photo of the treehopper, Acutalis tartarea; however, black is perhaps the least appropriate background to choose for this black species. Until now, it would have been my only option unless I tried arranging foliage in its background.  Photos 2 and 3 are of another individual of this species that I found today (fortunately in similar orientation to the individual photographed yesterday).  In both photos I kept the flash unit set to ETTL (adjusting FEC as appropriate for the shots).  In Photo 2 I bumped up the ISO to 400 but kept the shutter speed fast (1/200 sec)—you can see some effect in that the background is not truly black, having received some light from the blue sky.  It’s not enough, however, because the shutter speed was still too fast.  In Photo 3 the ISO remained at 400 but the shutter speed was also decreased to 1/60 sec.  The shutter staying open that long allows enough light from the sky to register on the sensor and, Voila!, we have a blue sky background that creates nice value contrast with the black subject.  The subject these photos is not terribly sharp, but that is just lack of focus—not motion blur from a slow shutter (sorry, I was just practicing settings rather than going for a perfect shot). All three photos were shot with the Canon 100mm macro lens + 68 mm of extension tube (total magnification ~2X).

''Typical'' insect macro settings: ISO 160, 1/250 sec, f/16

ISO increased to 400 (1/200 sec, f/16)

Shutter speed decreased to 1/60 (ISO 400, f/16)

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2011