Lobsters

Hi there people.

I'd like to hear your comments about these lobster photos I took last weekend in Kungshamn on the Swedish west coast.

The photos are not manipulated anything except what the camera does.

I know I missed the end of the antennas on all the photos, but what do you think of them otherwise? And which one do you like the best?

The last picture is of a small type of lobster that freely translated from swedish means "Troll lobster", dunno the english name on it.

They are small but quite beutiful with their bluestreaked backs.

Which wide angle conversion lens are you using? The corners of your shots are soft which makes me think this is not the best conversion lens to use.

Otherwise, you got good exposures!

Cheers

James

Patriko,

It depends on what you are trying to show with your pictures. They show a good Lobster specimen in its natural habitat. Nicely lit and exposed.

If you want to show us how interesting the Lobsters features are then you must give the viewer more detail.

I prefer your 2nd shot as the claws are in a nice position and you have a lower shooting angle.

I think you must get much closer and not worry too much about the antennae. Just check that they are not covering the eyes.

Some nice background colours but it has too much empty space. You can crop these shots quite tightly and loose those blurred corners.

The "Troll" Lobster is (I believe?) a Galathea strigosa.

In the UK they are known as Spiny squat lobsters and are usually very skitish.

Nice to see some familiar creatures.

PauP

I like #2. I would crop it a little. Looks to me like your depth of field was pretty shallow. Try a smaller aperature.

Dave

Thanks everyone for the comments.

James: I'm using the WC-E68 from Nikon. I'm not sure theres a problem with it though, I've never seen this softness before and I think it's more a matter of DOF since the lobsters tend to be inside holes or hidden between rocks and the rocks are thus much closer to me than the lobster where the focus is. But I'll check it out in other photos and see if it might be the case.

PauP: I agree with you about the 2nd shot being the best of them. As for getting closer... that's hard. I tried but you can approach them up to slightly less than half a meter and they will actually approach you threatingly. But get any closer than that and they retreat into the hole or wherever they're hiding and your lucky if you can get a shot of one of the claws.

And, you're absolutely right, the last one is a Galathea Strigosa.

Dave: Unfortenately these shots where taken with f8, which is the smallest aperature I can get with the CP5k.

My homepage will soon be updated with all photos from this trip (more lobsters, some crabs and other interesting things)

As for getting closer... that's hard. I tried but you can approach them up to slightly less than half a meter and they will actually approach you threatingly. But get any closer than that and they retreat into the hole or wherever they're hiding and your lucky if you can get a shot of one of the claws.

Patriko,

Try touching the tips of the long antennae, they usually can't resist it and will come right up to you. Try to keep them entertained while you get your shots.

I have never been nipped as of yet but do be careful.

PauP

I enjoyed the pictures very much! That's completely different from the spiny lobsters that we see in the Caribbean.

Thanks for showing your photos. And I don't even want to think about how cold the water is there!

Yes, due to their very wide lenses low smallest aperature is a problem with most consumer level digicams. I wonder if focusing 1/3 of the way in front of your subject would have improved the depth of field.

Try touching the tips of the long antennae, they usually can't resist it and will come right up to you. Try to keep them entertained while you get your shots.

Jimbo: It wasn't that cold actually, around 17 celcius. That's pretty damn hot for Sweden B)

Dave: Yeah, maybe, didn't think about that... will have to try it out next time

BTW, all pictures are now up on the homepage.

Cheers

/ Patrik

Jimbo: It wasn't that cold actually, around 17 celcius. That's pretty damn hot for Sweden.

According to my calculator, 17 C = 63 F. For us Caribbean divers, that's C-O-L-D!!!

I guess it's all relative.