COBRA MANTIS!!! (photos & video)
- Thread starter Precarious
- Start date
Help Support Mantidforum:
guapoalto049
Well-known member
Yikes, that's a big sub. Sub Chinese are around 3"
Precarious
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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: !
Did you ever find out what species they are and I hope you plan on breeding them and selling some :lol: !
Precarious
Well-known member
ismart
Well-known member
guapoalto049
Well-known member
Again, yikes! If its a 3" presub, sub should be around 4". Sounds more mega than the mega mantis
animalexplorer
Well-known member
Great images precarious! I just got back from California and it seems I'm missing all the great post by everyone.
Precarious
Well-known member
Nice! Please let us know when you find out the species, and share with us the adult pics too.
guapoalto049
Well-known member
Hey bro any updates? How big are the subadult females?
yeatzee
Well-known member
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
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
Well-known member
Thanks, man!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
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
Well-known member
She really barely grew from this molt. Just over 3" now. Maybe because I measured her initially less than a week before molt?
guapoalto049
Well-known member
That's odd. Did she gain much mass? Love to see more shots and videos of em, sounds like my dream species!
Precarious
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
Nice! I'm always on the lookout for the biggest and baddest, I think yours have the potential to take the cake.
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.
