Here are two photographs depicting a bevy of young caterpillars skeletonizing a parsley leaf:
In the first, light is provided by two diffused strobes from above. In the second, the diffuser is removed, eliminating the even reflection off the surface of the leaf, and one of the strobes is shifted to bounce off a plain surface behind the leaf, effectively back-lighting the shot.
It seems that half my posts on photography concern lighting, but there’s a reason for that. Photography is all about capturing light, and the best photographers exercise obsessive control over illumination. The second shot conveys the effect of skeletonization much more strongly, in my opinion.
Incidentally, do any of you recognize the caterpillars? I have a terrible time identifying young lepidopterans.
A personal blog by Illinois-based biologist and photographer Alex Wild.
They look (at least superficially) a lot like these guys:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/horsepunchkid/sets/72157625135353973
I suspected the eggs came from a tiger moth, Spilosoma sp. (Arctiidae), but I’m not an expert–just a guy with a camera.
Fall webworms? Hyphantria cunea.
They do look like the fall webworms, but that page doesn’t say anything about them eating parsley.
Well, if you decide to raise them up for a positive ID, at least you know what they eat.
I like the fall webworm hypothesis- thanks guys! Adults were common in our garden by late summer, so that would make sense.
That’s parsley? How tiny are the caterpillars?
I think the 2nd is definitely a clearer shot of the caterpillars, but the shadowy lighting on the 1st does a better job of showing what they’re doing to the leaf. You can see how much thickness they’ve eaten, and the 2nd shot makes it look like there’s nothing left of the leaf at all. Kinda depends what you’re trying to capture.
[...] A minor change in lighting, a major effect [...]