Just thought I'd throw up an image for discussion. When was the last time you saw an image with 99% of it out of focus? Good? Bad? Ugly?

Image...

I'm not a photographer but I think it's kinda cool isolating the butterfly thru the use of Depth Of Field as we calls it in the 3D world...guess it must be something similar in photography.....I thought it was very effective

 

Once in a while I look around,
I see a sound
and try to write it down
Sometimes they come out very soft
Tinkling light sound
The Sun comes up again

 

 

 

 

 

The technique for capture is very good, I would like to see the damsel fly (?) larger in the frame though.  

And every one said, 'If we only live,
We too will go to sea in a Sieve,---
To the hills of the Chankly Bore!'
Far and few, far and few, Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue, And they went to sea in a Sieve.

Edward Lear
http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/ns/jumblies.html

I rather like the image, though I would have cropped it differently. Since I was having a hard time describing how I would have cropped it, I just thought I'd show you, if you don't mind. This is my opinion of course, yours and others may vary. Great capture of a flying grasshopper.

Very nicely captured. I agree with Bill though, I think it could use some cropping. Here's my take. Really love it, the grasshopper looks kind of like a fairy with a flowing cape. =o]

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations

Thanks everyone for the thoughts. It's great to see the different ideas, but why do you choose your ideas?

Onslow, bigger in the frame... just so that the subject is more visible? Do we lose any motion in the composition? Is there any perceivable motion in the composition?

What direction would you say the grasshopper is flying?

Headless & Twopynts, love your croppings. Definitely isolates the subject. Do we lose sense on where the little hopper is? Is the hopper's surroundings worth saving if it were in focus? Or just not worth saving because the subject deserves the attention?

Bobbystahr, thanks for the comment. I believe that Depth of Field actually came from the photography world. It's an effect produced by the camera lens.

Thanks again everyone.

In answer to your further questions - the image gave no indication or clue that you were trying to show motion or a sense of direction. It did give every indication that you were trying to capture the creature with detail hence the answers you have received. Bigger in the frame or crop it so we can see the detail you are trying to show us, seems to be all respondents answers.

With the knowledge that you were trying to show motion and a sense the direction of motion I don't think the photograph is very successful.

Suggestions for future: Try shooting with a slower shutter speed to get some motion blur. Use second curtain synchronised flash to get a blurred trail of where the creature has come from with a sharp image of the creature at the end of the trail. If you have a flash gun that has a strobe setting try this to get a series of captures of the creature as it moves across the background.

HTH.

 

And every one said, 'If we only live,
We too will go to sea in a Sieve,---
To the hills of the Chankly Bore!'
Far and few, far and few, Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue, And they went to sea in a Sieve.

Edward Lear
http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/ns/jumblies.html

::see Richard's (Onslow) comment:: I would say as the photo stands, the subject is what deserves the attention. The backgroud serves to give the impression of where it is, but does not need to be emphasized more than it is. As far as motion goes, there is not doubt that the hopper is in flight. The strong diagonal only helps that. Still, for further motion effects, Richard has good ideas.

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations

I'll just echo what TwoPynts and Onslow said. The crop I did was to eliminate the brown in the background on the right of the image and the pale green plant on the left. My eye kept needlessly wandering to those areas and tried to put the focus back on the hopper, while trying to maintain the sense of scale in your shot. I think TwoPynts vertical crop is a much better choice to focus on the hopper and what it is doing.

Thanks again everyone. This is the type of discussion I love to see. In fact, I think it would be an excellent idea if the mods had a weekly image for discussion?

As for the hopper at hand, it's actually not hopping in any direction. It's doing it's mating dance, where it hops straight up vertically, and will fly in the same spot for several seconds, before dropping back down. This attracts other grasshoppers for mating.

Twopynt's and Headless' crops are both very close to the crops I would use also. Vertical would be true to the actual event as it happened.

 

I found this discussion very interesting... good questions and good ideas ware posed and given. Way to go FuzzyShadows, I like the way you 'moderated' this ;-)) Good alternative ideas and crops. And Richard, you're the Source!

We do not see things as they are. ǝɹɐ ǝʍ sɐ sƃuıɥʇ ǝǝs ǝʍ
 

Should have come in here earlier. I like the look of your shot, and know how hard they are to do... I had the same idea with an image  I just took too. I liked it and it seemed clear on the LCD, but on the monitor out  of focus. I still like it, and it was a hard capture.

Though I doubt it will go in a gallery, it is something that will become more a challenge for me now.

"The happiness of a man in this life does not consist in the absence but in the mastery of his passions."

Butterflies and dragonflies have to be the hardest to capture in flight. I have a few dragonflies in flight, but I'll never admit how many shots it took to get them! I've never even tried butterflies, since they don't even seem to fly very straight.. rather darting around. Did you have your D200 set to autofocus for this shot?