# COBRA MANTIS!!! (photos & video)



## Precarious (Aug 12, 2011)

Can someone help identify this species?

From Indonesia, a Rhombodera species (?) with a large Pronotum like a Choeradodis.

Adult females are over 5" with a red body. (That turned out to be hype. She is 3.6" as adult.)

This is a subadult female.

(Updated photos HERE.)

You can see her making good use of her grooming bristles in the video.

She moistens them, rubs them on her, then cleans them with her mouth.

Music by Precarious :walkman:


----------



## Precarious (Aug 12, 2011)




----------



## psyconiko (Aug 12, 2011)

So nice!

It looks a little like Rhombodera stalii..apple green and pink.I am not sure!

It is beautiful!


----------



## Precarious (Aug 12, 2011)

Nikkko said:


> So nice!
> 
> It looks a little like Rhombodera stalii..apple green and pink.I am not sure!
> 
> It is beautiful!


Thanks!

Definitely larger shield than Rhombodera stalii, but overall they are a close match. Must be some variation of Rhombodera.


----------



## patrickfraser (Aug 12, 2011)

OMG! Absolutely stunning. Both the mantis AND the photography. I want, I want, I want.


----------



## Precarious (Aug 12, 2011)

Yen suggests *Rhombodera **valida* or more likely *Rhombodera basalis*.

I can only find photos of adult Rhombodera basalis and they look somewhat different. Shield not quite as wide and no color change toward the edges of the underside of the shield. I guess I'll have to wait for adults to make a call on it.

*Igor Siwanowicz' **Rhombodera basalis*








patrickfraser said:


> OMG! Absolutely stunning. Both the mantis AND the photography. I want, I want, I want.


Thanks! Some of my best photos so far, me thinx.

I'm working on getting these to adult so I can breed them. You may get your wish.


----------



## Idolofreak (Aug 12, 2011)

Pretty mantis! Yeah, they should be easier to figure out once they have their wings. Nice close-ups on those bristles!


----------



## kitkat39 (Aug 12, 2011)

That's a very nice looking shield, even at sub adult


----------



## ReDSnoW (Aug 12, 2011)

For me she is a Rhombodera basalis.

I saw the Mantis often times and so i think i can say this wonderful mantis is a Rhombodera basalis.

Greets


----------



## yen_saw (Aug 12, 2011)

Precarious said:


> Yen suggests *Rhombodera **valida* or more likely *Rhombodera basalis*.
> 
> I can only find photos of adult Rhombodera basalis and they look somewhat different. Shield not quite as wide and no color change toward the edges of the underside of the shield. I guess I'll have to wait for adults to make a call on it.


I think it was the other way around in my email to you  From observation both Rh. valida and Rh. basalis has wider shield than Rh. stalli. Rh. valida shield is always consistantly rounder than Rh. basalis, while Rh. basalis has blue hue wings but Rh. valida is always bright green. However, my observation serves no purpose when it comes to taxonomy, just a personal experience.Also, the mantis in Igor's picture is likely Rh. stalli instead.


----------



## Precarious (Aug 12, 2011)

yen_saw said:


> I think it was the other way around in my email to you  From observation both Rh. valida and Rh. basalis has wider shield than Rh. stalli. Rh. valida shield is always consistantly rounder than Rh. basalis, while Rh. basalis has blue hue wings but Rh. valida is always bright green. However, my observation serves no purpose when it comes to taxonomy, just a personal experience.
> 
> Also, the mantis in Igor's picture is likely Rh. stalli instead.


Haha! Igor must be confused then too (as well as Lars from mantisanddragons.com). His photo is labeled as Rhombodera basalis. No wonder. Species must commonly be mixed up if they only show minimal differences. Thanks Yen!


----------



## twolfe (Aug 12, 2011)

I want too!!

Beautiful images of a beautiful mantis. You had only shared one image with me, and I said that was probably your best. This series is definitely your best! The photos of the mantis eating are extremely sharp. The last pose of her eating is my favorite. You know I love Igor's work, and these are as good as his! Your lucky you found a site where he labeled his images. He often doesn't identify the species on some sites.

I know you are looking for help identifying this species and not feedback....My preference is to usually clone out one of the double flash created catch lights, but I've seen photos published with two. So, I guess that's a personal preference.

I sure hope you can breed this species. Looks like you'd have no trouble selling them. And you should be able to sell these images, too. Maybe we'll get to see that last one published some day. I wish it were mine!

Tammy


----------



## Precarious (Aug 12, 2011)

Tammy Wolfe said:


> I want too!!
> 
> Beautiful images of a beautiful mantis. You had only shared one image with me, and I said that was probably your best. This series is definitely your best! The photos of the mantis eating are extremely sharp. The last pose of her eating is my favorite. You know I love Igor's work, and these are as good as his! Your lucky you found a site where he labeled his images. He often doesn't identify the species on some sites.
> 
> ...


Wow! Thanks! That's high praise...

I'm always looking for feedback. Hmmm... I hadn't considered removing the flash reflections but I could easily do that. I kind of like that you can see the individual lenses of the compound eye within the flash though. I'll experiment next time and see how it looks. Thanks for the tips!

I have a pretty systematic approach in Photoshop. Found the right combination of tweaks in the order that works best for me. Really seems to bring out all the details. I'll fill you in if you're interested. Not sure if it would work with RAW images. I've yet to shoot in RAW. I guess I'm at the point where it begins to make sense for me to try RAW. Before I was compiling multiple shots into a single image. Doesn't make sense to use RAW for that. All of these except for one are single photos. I don't know what I'm doing different or if it's the lens since being repaired but I haven't had to do as much focus stacking. I think it's because this is a big mantis and I'm not zoomed in as close as I normally am. Yeah, that's probably it. OK, I'll stop talking to myself now...


----------



## twolfe (Aug 12, 2011)

Precarious, I only shoot RAW when I'm doing serious shooting with one of my pro bodies. I've been carrying around a Canon G11 for family snapshots because I never seem to get caught up processing images. I still encourage you to try RAW. I lost a sale early on because I was only shooting jpeg. That was in the mid 90s. Your Big Backyard (a National Wildlife Federation publication) and other magazines have asked me to send them the RAW image.

I've found it much easier and less frustrating to photograph the larger mantis.


----------



## Precarious (Aug 12, 2011)

UPDATE:

A friend with the same species from the same source says this is definitely not Rhombodera basal / valida / stalii. He will be sending me the species name when he can get at his notes so probably later tonight.


----------



## dragon (Aug 14, 2011)

Gorgeous pics of a beautiful mantis, Precarious!


----------



## RevWillie (Aug 14, 2011)

FWIW I always shoot RAW+jpeg so I have jpegs for quick viewing&amp;culling, and RAW for tweaking the best stuff. RAW has saved my bacon many times and the ability to go -2 to +2, white balance and other tweaks is a lifesaver. I have a Canon G-9 that is beat up but still functional and I'll only replace it with something that can also do RAW (like my slrs).

On Topic:

Gorgeous mantis and award-winning photography!!! What more can I say, but


----------



## Precarious (Aug 14, 2011)

RevWillie said:


> FWIW I always shoot RAW+jpeg so I have jpegs for quick viewing&amp;culling, and RAW for tweaking the best stuff. RAW has saved my bacon many times and the ability to go -2 to +2, white balance and other tweaks is a lifesaver. I have a Canon G-9 that is beat up but still functional and I'll only replace it with something that can also do RAW (like my slrs).
> 
> On Topic:
> 
> Gorgeous mantis and award-winning photography!!! What more can I say, but


Award-winning photography?!?! Someone forgot to give me my award. :angry: 

Yum, bacon... :tt1: 

Peer pressure! I feel so oppressed... :mellow: 

But seriously, I started using RAW yesterday. Took a walk in the woods and I'm very impressed with the results. I'm still fumbling my way through the new format so these may be a little overcooked (like extra crispy yummy bacon) but...






*Anyone know what this little freakazoid is???*






Looks like RAW requires some sharpening, which I'm not used to but I'll figure it all out. I'll be reading up on RAW technique for the next couple days (at least). :blink:


----------



## guapoalto049 (Aug 15, 2011)

Rhombodera fratricida are huge aren't they? How big is she at subadult?


----------



## Precarious (Aug 15, 2011)

guapoalto049 said:


> Rhombodera fratricida are huge aren't they? How big is she at subadult?


She's under 4". Maybe 3.75"?


----------



## guapoalto049 (Aug 15, 2011)

Yikes, that's a big sub. Sub Chinese are around 3"


----------



## Precarious (Aug 15, 2011)

guapoalto049 said:


> Yikes, that's a big sub. Sub Chinese are around 3"


Oops! That was a guesstimate and I overshot. I just officially measured and she's only 3". But her shield is almost .75" across. Sorry for the exaggeration. I was trying to measure her with a tape measure while she was hanging in her cup. Didn't want to disturb her.


----------



## Precarious (Aug 19, 2011)

guapoalto049 said:


> Yikes, that's a big sub. Sub Chinese are around 3"


Good news. I thought they were sub but they were only pre-sub. That just means they will be even bigger as adults.  

They just molted to sub. Here's one of the males fresh from molt...


----------



## mantidsaresweet (Aug 19, 2011)

These guys are AWESOME!!! B) 

Did you ever find out what species they are and I hope you plan on breeding them and selling some :lol: !


----------



## Precarious (Aug 19, 2011)

mantidsaresweet said:


> Did you ever find out what species they are and I hope you plan on breeding them and selling some :lol: !


Still no 100% ID. I'll do my best to spread them around.


----------



## ismart (Aug 19, 2011)

Precarious said:


> Still no 100% ID. I'll do my best to spread them around.


Yes, please keep me in mind!


----------



## guapoalto049 (Aug 19, 2011)

Again, yikes! If its a 3" presub, sub should be around 4". Sounds more mega than the mega mantis


----------



## animalexplorer (Aug 19, 2011)

Great images precarious! I just got back from California and it seems I'm missing all the great post by everyone.


----------



## Precarious (Aug 19, 2011)

animalexplorer said:


> Great images precarious! I just got back from California and it seems I'm missing all the great post by everyone.


You should know better than to walk away from your computer. :angry:


----------



## yen_saw (Aug 23, 2011)

Nice! Please let us know when you find out the species, and share with us the adult pics too.


----------



## guapoalto049 (Aug 27, 2011)

Hey bro any updates? How big are the subadult females?


----------



## mykey14 (Aug 29, 2011)

I have a Rhombodera stalli and it looks almost exactly like this one, but with a smaller shield. Btw I'm subscribed to you on YouTube.


----------



## yeatzee (Aug 29, 2011)

A couple points, but before that A question  

Whats the lighting setup? I was going to say MT24 but the orientation of some photo's dont match up.

Alright now on to my points:

1. Personally i think cloning out the catch-lights is kind of lame. What I would say is perhaps a better diffuser to not get such hard-lined ones (though mantid eyes are VERY forgiving in that sense). What are you using?

2. I used to only shoot jpeg but now that I have lightroom its 100% RAW. Its nearly as quick as shooting jpeg with the invention of batch editing and presets, yet I have WAY more wiggle room. And yes RAW will require more sharpening since the camera (depending on your settings) will do a considerable amount itself.

3. I like your neutral grey backgrounds. No fuss, straight to the point, and it does not distract from the subject at all  Good stuff


----------



## Precarious (Aug 29, 2011)

yeatzee said:


> A couple points, but before that A question
> 
> Whats the lighting setup? I was going to say MT24 but the orientation of some photo's dont match up.
> 
> ...


Thanks, man!

You are correct - MT24. Rather than adjusting the ratio between heads I just push the flash heads as close together as possible so the lighting isn't quite so even and flat. Also creates a more narrow profile when I'm sticking the lens into a tight space. That's what threw you off.  

I actually have diffusers of the individual flash heads which definitely make the light less harsh but don't diffuse enough to disguise the catch-lights. Still not sure I'm concerned about that anyway. I have the Canon diffusers and they don't do much at all, so I rigged two Gary Fong Puffer Pop-Up Flash Diffusers and it works pretty well.
















I could run something across both surfaces to bring them more together. Maybe I'll experiment with that.

Thanks on the backgrounds too. I feel the same way.

I've since started shooting in RAW and I'm hooked for sure. Took me a bit to find my legs but well worth it. My only issues is I can now spend an hour or more on a single image which is too overwhelming when you average 60 to 100 macro shots per day. So now I shoot in RAW+JPG. I can tear through JPGs much faster and I'll use the RAW files for the best of the best. RAW just gives me too many options. That coupled with the onOne and Topaz plugins becomes a creative nightmare. :blink:


----------



## Precarious (Aug 29, 2011)

guapoalto049 said:


> Hey bro any updates? How big are the subadult females?


She really barely grew from this molt. Just over 3" now. Maybe because I measured her initially less than a week before molt?


----------



## guapoalto049 (Aug 29, 2011)

That's odd. Did she gain much mass? Love to see more shots and videos of em, sounds like my dream species!


----------



## Precarious (Aug 30, 2011)

guapoalto049 said:


> That's odd. Did she gain much mass? Love to see more shots and videos of em, sounds like my dream species!


Must have mainly been a gain of mass because one of the males is still pre-sub and there is an obvious difference but not much in length.

I had the female out roaming around today and she's beautiful. Very curious. Climbing all over. I'll try to get some fresh pics or video soon. I have great footage of the male molt I need to edit too.


----------



## guapoalto049 (Aug 30, 2011)

Nice! I'm always on the lookout for the biggest and baddest, I think yours have the potential to take the cake.


----------



## giesle (Sep 4, 2011)

Very nice quality shots. I was looking at your exif and assume you are using the Canon 100mm at f22. I have been shooting insects with that lens for 6 years and now am wondering if I got a subpar copy. I usually shoot around f11 if I want the picture to be super sharp with good compound eye detail. I just tried it after seeing your pictures and at f20 I can just barely, if at all, make out some compound eye detail when shooting an adult ghost with optimal lighting and front focusing. Anything with a larger f number and the detail just isn't there. What do you think? Maybe I should go to the camera store with a mantis and test one of theirs. Your mantis's eyes might show up better, but like I said, I have had this same result with different insects ever since I've owned the lens.


----------



## hierodula (Sep 4, 2011)

:wub: soooo coooooolll.... and huge


----------



## Precarious (Sep 4, 2011)

giesle said:


> Very nice quality shots. I was looking at your exif and assume you are using the Canon 100mm at f22. I have been shooting insects with that lens for 6 years and now am wondering if I got a subpar copy. I usually shoot around f11 if I want the picture to be super sharp with good compound eye detail. I just tried it after seeing your pictures and at f20 I can just barely, if at all, make out some compound eye detail when shooting an adult ghost with optimal lighting and front focusing. Anything with a larger f number and the detail just isn't there. What do you think? Maybe I should go to the camera store with a mantis and test one of theirs. Your mantis's eyes might show up better, but like I said, I have had this same result with different insects ever since I've owned the lens.


Hmmm... That doesn't sound right to me. So even if you are focusing on the eyes specifically? I rarely shoot below f22 unless I'm purposefully trying to blur the background more. I used to shoot everything at f32 and still get good detail. I did tests a while back to see how much fuzzier detail gets at higher f and it was noticeable but not a deal-breaker. That's why I now shoot at f22 (ISO 100, 1/200-1/100 in Manual mode w/ MT-24ex flash).

I recently had my EF100 serviced because I was getting intermittent overexposure and I swear all my shots are now looking better, causing me to suspect it had issues from day one. Couldn't hurt to try someone else's EF100 and/or body just to see.

I skimmed your photos and you are obviously a pro so I'm sure you know what you're doing. I'm pretty much a novice. Got my first real camera in January. No idea if I'm doing something different than the norm other than using add-on diopters to increase magnification. 1:1 doesn't cut it for me and I can't afford an MP-E 65 (although I have a rental right now and it's pretty amazing beyond 4x). I do focus stack here and there and I'm pretty experienced with Photoshop. I don't know if that would make the difference or not. I'm pretty good at bringing out detail in post.


----------



## Precarious (Sep 4, 2011)

giesle said:


> Anything with a larger f number and the detail just isn't there. What do you think? Maybe I should go to the camera store with a mantis and test one of theirs.


I wonder if that Tamron 2X AF TeleConverter is causing the issue? It's not recommended for lenses over 50mm. Do some test shots with and without and let me know.


----------



## giesle (Sep 4, 2011)

Precarious said:


> Hmmm... That doesn't sound right to me. So even if you are focusing on the eyes specifically? I rarely shoot below f22 unless I'm purposefully trying to blur the background more. I used to shoot everything at f32 and still get good detail. I did tests a while back to see how much fuzzier detail gets at higher f and it was noticeable but not a deal-breaker. That's why I now shoot at f22 (ISO 100, 1/200-1/100 in Manual mode w/ MT-24ex flash).
> 
> I recently had my EF100 serviced because I was getting intermittent overexposure and I swear all my shots are now looking better, causing me to suspect it had issues from day one. Couldn't hurt to try someone else's EF100 and/or body just to see.
> 
> I skimmed your photos and you are obviously a pro so I'm sure you know what you're doing. I'm pretty much a novice. Got my first real camera in January. No idea if I'm doing something different than the norm other than using add-on diopters to increase magnification. 1:1 doesn't cut it for me and I can't afford an MP-E 65 (although I have a rental right now and it's pretty amazing beyond 4x). I do focus stack here and there and I'm pretty experienced with Photoshop. I don't know if that would make the difference or not. I'm pretty good at bringing out detail in post.


Thanks a lot for the information. I ran into this same thing a few years ago after seeing somebody else's 100mm Canon macro shots that they claimed they shot at a high f number and there was a lot of compound eye detail. I kind of put it out of my mind and didn't pursue it much because I really wasn't shooting insects during that period and it was plenty sharp for anything else. Now I'm really pretty upset at all the pictures I missed by not having enough dof....seriously. I will go test another one if I can and since the resale value is so high, maybe sell it on Ebay and buy another on Ebay and won't be out hardly anything. I don't know if I'd feel right selling it like that though, but I've been happy with it for years the way it is and have taken a lot of good shots with it. I'll let you know as soon as I test another one. Thanks again.


----------



## giesle (Sep 4, 2011)

Precarious said:


> I wonder if that Tamron 2X AF TeleConverter is causing the issue? It's not recommended for lenses over 50mm. Do some test shots with and without and let me know.


I'm just using my lens and nothing else. I honestly almost forgot I even had that thing.  It's been years since it was used. I do use extension tubes once in awhile.


----------



## giesle (Sep 4, 2011)

Did you have on extension tubes or diopters in these pics? If so, then I need to try that right now. I do have the 250D and 500D diopters and a stack of tubes.


----------



## Precarious (Sep 4, 2011)

giesle said:


> Did you have on extension tubes or diopters in these pics? If so, then I need to try that right now. I do have the 250D and 500D diopters and a stack of tubes.


No tubes used in these shots. Some are straight EF100. Others use a $20 Opteka 10x over the Canon 250 D. I shoot a lot of macro video so I did extensive testing of diopters since that's all that's available for camcorders. The Opteka is the only I've found that appears to be truly achromatic. Very slight aberration toward the extremes but the 250 D eliminates that. I highly recommend you pick one up. I've tried many at three times the cost that couldn't even compete.


----------



## giesle (Sep 4, 2011)

Precarious said:


> No tubes used in these shots. Some are straight EF100. Others use a $20 Opteka 10x over the Canon 250 D. I shoot a lot of macro video so I did extensive testing of diopters since that's all that's available for camcorders. The Opteka is the only I've found that appears to be truly achromatic. Very slight aberration toward the extremes but the 250 D eliminates that. I highly recommend you pick one up. I've tried many at three times the cost that couldn't even compete.


That's a heck of a deal on that diopter. Ok, I just now woke up from being a total moron. I haven't been shooting super close much for quite awhile and I usually am zoomed out for a different kind of shot and a lot of the time need the lower f number for the background light. Being embarrassed for being stupid is a small price to pay to get back on track though. Thanks for the conversation and helping me out. I wasn't focused in far enough in my earlier pics to get the compound eye at higher than f20. Here's a snap I just now took between posts with 2 250's stacked on the end of my 100mm and focused probably around halfway. Pic is straight out of the camera, with zero done to it, so it's a little rough. F32 and plenty of compound eye and just look at the dof.  I'm posting this one to show the dof....compound eye showing in both eyes, this close, while mantis posing at a side view. http://www.scottcromwellphoto.com/Other/test-shot/18868653_fbNrsB#1462570642_QtqtDVZ-O-LB


----------



## Precarious (Sep 4, 2011)

giesle said:


> Pic is straight out of the camera, with zero done to it, so it's a little rough. F32 and plenty of compound eye and just look at the dof.  I'm posting this one to show the dof....compound eye showing in both eyes, this close, while mantis posing at a side view. http://www.scottcrom...42_QtqtDVZ-O-LB


Nice! That looks more like it.

Yeah, macro is a whole other set of rules. I pretty much only know macro so I forget people use modes other than manual. I rely on the flash nearly exclusively for every shot 1:1 and closer. I use f mainly to control DoF since the flash catches the slack. You do lose a little sharpness the higher you go but that generally only becomes an issue if you are going beyond 3x and plan on doing a complex focus stack, in which case they suggest f14 or lower.


----------

