JuzaPhoto uses technical cookies and third-part cookies to provide the service and to make possible login, choice of background color and other settings (click here for more info).
By continuing to browse the site you confirm that you have read your options regarding cookies and that you have read and accepted the Terms of service and Privacy.
You can change in every moment your cookies preferences from the page Cookie Preferences, that can be reached from every page of the website with the link that you find at the bottom of the page; you can also set your preferences directly here
Do you have questions or curiosities about this image? Do you want to ask something to the author, give him suggestions for improvement, or congratulate for a photo that you really like?
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 242000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
sent on November 15, 2021 (10:31) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Considering that the subject is certainly not small, I would have tried to increase the sensitivity to close the diaphragm as much as possible to have as much pdc as possible thus giving greater sharpness to the arachnid. Too bad we didn't have the help of an artificial light. Considerando che il soggetto non è certo di piccole dimensioni, avrei cercato aumentando la sensibilità di chiudere per quanto possibile il diaframma per avere più pdc possibile dando così una maggiore nitidezza all'aracnide. Peccato non aver avuto l'aiuto di una luce artificiale.
sent on November 15, 2021 (13:46) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
If as I assume, the photo was taken in captivity, it should be specified in the notes. Beautily exemplary! ;-) Se come presumo, la foto è stata fatta in cattività, andrebbe specificato nelle note. Bell'esemplare!
sent on November 15, 2021 (23:47) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Pigi actually the subject is about 4cm so not as big as it might seem from the photo. Yes I could have had more depth of field if I wanted, but I was already at F10 and I did not want to increase too much to avoid possible diffraction problems, however even arriving at F13 or F16 I do not think I would have been able to keep all the migale in focus. I should have walked away but then it would have been a whole other kind of photo hahaha. As for artificial light I give you absolutely right, I necessarily need it! Claudio, you are right and it is also written in the regulation. My mistake that I will now remedy, thank you for pointing it out to me with courtesy! And above all thanks for the compliment! :-D Pigi in realtà il soggetto è di circa 4cm quindi non poi così grande come potrebbe sembrare dalla foto. Si avrei potuto avere più profondità di campo volendo, ma ero già ad F10 e non volevo aumentare troppo per evitare possibili problemi di diffrazione, comunque anche arrivando ad F13 o F16 non penso sarei riuscito a tenere tutta la migale a fuoco. Mi sarei dovuto allontanare ma allora sarebbe stata tutta un altro tipo di foto ahahah. Per quanto riguarda la luce artificiale ti do assolutamente ragione, ne ho necessariamente bisogno!
Claudio, hai ragione e c'è anche scritto nel regolamento. Mio errore a cui ora porrò rimedio, grazie di avermelo fatto notare con cortesia! E sopratutto grazie del complimento!