Several years ago Karl and Dorothy Legler and I began a project that eventually culminated in Guide to Common Dragonflies of Wisconsin. Having avidly pursued photography for 25 years prior to this, I thought that the shift from wildflower and mushroom photography would be a minor one. Little did I realize the education I was about to receive! After 5 years of refining my technique and equipment, and having quite a few requests for information on how I go about photographing these wonderful creatures, I guess it's time to do a short article on the subject. Hopefully it will save you some time and frustration and the hundreds of rolls of film that I burned up while acquiring the tricks and techniques.
I first encountered the joys and frustrations of odonate photography in 1991. I was shooting wildflowers in a meadow that bordered a large body of water and couldn't help but notice that almost every mullein plant in the meadow was crowned by a small and beautiful dragonfly. I had a 200mm lens with me so I decided to try getting some photos of them. The lens only focused to 6 ft, which is totally useless for shooting dragons, so I added an extension tube and managed to burn up the better part of a 36 exposure roll of Kodachrome 64. The day was bright and sunny but yet I was forced to shoot at 1/250th of a second at f/4 because of the light loss caused by the extension tube and the slow speed of the film. I did take some shots at 1/125th of a second at f/5.6 but these frames later showed unmistakable camera shake. I was shooting without a tripod. My personal opinion on tripods and dragonflies is that the 2 are totally incompatible. Trying to get to within 2 ft of a small species such as Sympetrum or Perithemis, which is, with a 200mm lens, about the distance you want to get a frame filling shot, is an exercise in frustration if you're using a tripod. My sense of humor is as good as anyone's but I don't appreciate hearing dragonflies laughing at me as I try to maneuver a tripod into position.
The dragonflies I was shooting that day, I later discovered, were male Pachydiplax longipennis. When I got the slides back from processing I was struck by the sheer beauty of the dragonflies but dismayed by the lack of depth of field in the images. The area of sharp focus at f/4 was extremely shallow and the slightest body movement was enough to throw them out of focus. I later came to realize that at very close distances even my heartbeat was sufficient to destroy critical focusing. I decided at the time that if I shot dragonflies again I would put some of my flash techniques to work. The problem would be in softening the harsh light of direct flash without using the 32 inch umbrellas that I use to bounce and soften the flashes I use in wildflower and mushroom photography.
Another objection I have to shooting in natural light (sunlight) is that the color temperature is constantly changing and so, therefore, are the colors of the dragonflies. The human eye is quite good at fooling itself as to the colors that its actually seeing. If it has seen the object before it knows what color it really is and will make you think that the yellow on a dragonfly shot in the woods is still yellow even though its green on the film because the sunlight has filtered through the leaves of the canopy and turned green in the process. This is all fine and dandy, but I recall seeing photos of dragonflies that I had not yet seen in person and was greatly surprised to see in real life that they had yellow dorsal stripes instead of the green stripes that I knew from the photos. To be truly useful in identification I feel very strongly that flash photography is the only way to go. The colors are always accurate with flash and always consistent. It bothers me to see a collection of photos of a particular species and see that their colors vary wildly >from frame to frame due to the changing color of the natural light. Natural light is a wonderful thing for artistically pleasing shots of landscapes, etc. but its a disaster for dragonflies.
Now that I have all you natural light fans up in arms I'm going to change the subject for awhile and start at the very beginning and discuss what I'm using at present to shoot dragonflies (my setup is constantly evolving and, unfortunately, getting heavier and heavier). Ill start with choosing a film format. There are a great number of medium formats out there such 6cm X 4.5cm, 6cm X 6cm, 6cm X 7cm, etc. but they're not well suited to dragonfly photography for several reasons. They're heavy, expensive, especially at the longer focal lengths needed, and there are no macro or Micro (as Nikon prefers to call them) lenses available in long focal lengths. Medium format also loses its advantage of larger film size when you begin shooting at reproduction ratios around 1:5 or closer. Reproduction ratio is the relationship between the actual physical size of the subject, in this case a dragonfly, and the actual physical size of the image of the dragonfly on the film. Simply put, a reproduction ratio (R.R.) of 1:5 means that the image on the film is 1/5 the size of the actual dragonfly. 1:3 R.R. would be 1/3 life size, 1:1 would be actual life size, and 2:1 would be twice life size, etc. When you begin shooting at these R.R.s, larger film size, for reasons that we need not go into here, is much less important than when shooting subjects such as landscapes at R.R.s of 1:100 or greater. Therefore 35mm is extremely well suited for shooting dragonflies. The cameras are small, lightweight, and the lenses are extremely good, with macro lenses being readily available, at least in the 90mm to 105mm focal lengths. Nikon currently has 2 different 200mm Micro Nikkors available. I will be writing the rest of this article under the assumption that you will be shooting with a 200mm lens or perhaps a 90mm - 105mm with a 2X teleconverter. Teleconverters are a subject unto themselves and will be dealt with separately later on. I've found that anything shorter than 200mm is not a good choice as it forces you to get so close for a decent shot that many dragonflies simply will not tolerate your presence at the distances necessary for these shorter lenses. There are many exceptions to this but over time a 200mm is definitely your best bet. Anything over 200mm will invite camera shake. I will occasionally use a 200mm Micro Nikkor with the Nikkor TC14-B teleconverter for difficult to approach species such as Gomphids which will frequently land on exposed rocks in river rapids. I try to pick a boulder in the river which is as close as I can get to whichever rock appears to be their favorite and I'm forced to shoot at that distance, whatever it may be. But I generally try to use only the 200mm. It gives adequate working distance for all but the wariest dragons and minimizes the problem of camera shake.
Having decided on a film format, let's get down to the basics of a good dragonfly setup and begin with the camera body.
I'll start out with what I consider to be absolutely essential and move onto desirable and not so desirable options later. The one feature that I consider to be the most important of all is to have an electronic flash synch speed no slower than 1/250th of a second. The flash synch speed is usually marked in red on the shutter speed dial or it will have an icon of a lightning bolt or some such device next to the speed. This is the maximum shutter speed that you can use when shooting with electronic flash. If you try to use a faster shutter speed than this with your flash, part of the film frame will be black or very underexposed. Most older cameras had a synch speed of 1/60. This was later increased to 1/80, then 1/125, and still later, due to new shutter curtain designs and materials, to 1/250. I consider 1/250 to be essential because even though practically all the light in your exposures will be coming from the flash(es), there is still enough ambient light hitting the film to show up any camera shake. And believe me, when its 90 degrees and you're out in the sun and attempting to stalk to within photo range of a dragon and the mosquitoes and deerflies are eating you alive and you cant move for fear of scaring the dragon, you WILL have camera shake with a 200mm lens. In all but the most extreme cases, a synch speed of 1/250 will eliminate the problem. Occasionally one can get by with 1/125 but I can guarantee that you will lose some great shots from shake. I once tried shooting spring frogs with a 200mm lens with a Nikon F2 that synched at 1/80 and got only 1 usable shot out of 36!
Now for the bad news. There are very few 35mm bodies available that synch at 1/250. I've been using Nikons for the last 25 years and am pretty ignorant as to what's available from other makers but I think 1/250 flash synch is a relative rarity. (If this begins to sound like an ad for Nikon I apologize but its what I'm most familiar with.) There are at least three Nikon bodies with 1/250 flash synch, the FM2n, F4s, and F5. Of the three, the latter two are monumentally expensive and have a plethora of features that are of no use in shooting up close pictures of dragonflies. Auto focus is of very little use because the focus is always a compromise. Normally you want to focus on the eye of the dragonfly, which means you'll have to keep its eye in the center of the frame where the autofocus sensor is. This results in every shot being off center in the frame. Some of the new autofocus bodies allow you to change which part of the frame it will focus on, but in the field, in the heat of the moment, I have strong doubts as to how well this would work out. In addition, all of these high tech bells and whistles need batteries to function. The FM2n, on the other hand, uses two small, inexpensive batteries which only power the light meter. In flash photography, you don't even use the meter, so if it goes dead, who cares? All the features that you need for shooting dragonflies with this camera are wholly mechanical and if its well built (the FM2n certainly is), this means extreme reliability.
One feature that I'm also fond of is having interchangeable focusing screens. The standard screens work well for general types of photography but the split image rangefinders and microprism focusing circles tend to black out in low light with longer focal lengths. I have replaced the focusing screen in every body I've got with the plain matte screen. It stays bright in dim light and there aren't any distractions to good composition with a plain screen. One of my FM2n bodies has been fitted with a Beattie Intenscreen, which is an aftermarket focusing screen and it brightens up the viewfinder a great deal, making focusing much easier. Its a nice option but by no means necessary.
Another nice option for your camera body is a motor drive. They tend to be expensive and aren't necessary but they offer several advantages. First, you don't have to be moving your right hand all the time to advance the film. This movement will often spook a critter and send him flying off into the next county. Second, if you're using a high voltage battery pack, the extremely fast recycling time of the flash(es), coupled with automatic film advance enables you to get a shot off about every 2 seconds. This is a great feature to have when you come upon a rare or unknown species where time is of the essence. The first time you have to wait 30 seconds for a set of tired AA batteries to recycle your flash when there's a rare species perched right in front of you, you'll know what I mean. If you're using a motor drive but not flash you can get off as many as 5 frames per second! This is great for bugs in flight or series such as the ovipositing "dance" of Tramea. Its also a great way to break the bank with film processing costs! Every option has a price. After 2 years of using a high voltage battery pack and motor drive I'm still trying to resist the urge to keep firing until the end of the roll. Kodak, however, loves me!
When you're using electronic flash units on your camera for shooting dragonflies TTL (through the lens) flash metering also is unnecessary. On a lot of shots this feature simply wont recognize that the dragonfly is the subject of the photo and it will read the background light and expose for the background conditions. These could include a bright sunlit sky or a dark pool in the middle of a woods. Either way, TTL flash metering will let you down and either under or overexpose the dragonfly. This is an added expense on a camera body that you don't need. If you already have it, use it for the situations where it will work properly but don't use it for dragonflies.
Flash exposures for dragonflies are best set manually. You'll need a different f/stop for each R.R. but these f/stops are easily determined by shooting one test roll of film with the same setup that you'll be using in the field. As long as you don't change your equipment setup the f/stop for a 1:5 R.R. will always remain the same, as will the f/stop for a 1:4 R.R. and so on down the line. Natural light may have some effect on the exposure for the distant background in your photos but little, if any, effect on the near objects in the frame (dragonfly, vegetation, etc.).
To sum up the subject of necessary features on your camera body, the only thing that is essential is a flash synch speed of 1/250. Everything else is nonessential and may actually get in your way.
Desirable optional features are as follows:
If I had to choose between a motor drive or a clear matte focusing screen I think I'd opt for the screen.
This is the point where things can start to get expensive. I said, can start to get expensive. However, it doesn't have to. For the first 3 years that I shot dragons I used the old standard Nikkor 200mm f/4 lens that I bought in 1975. Its not a macro lens so it only focused to 6 ft and wasn't corrected to perform at its optical best at distances any closer than that. In spite of that, with the use of extension tubes of different lengths I was able to use it and the sharpness was perfectly adequate. So if you already have a 200mm lens you can get by just fine and need only purchase a set of extension tubes. These are usually sold in sets of three different lengths allowing you to get progressively closer by mounting a tube of a longer length between your camera and the lens. The only problem that I encountered was that I would sometimes be able to approach a dragonfly closer than I had anticipated and would have to try to change to a longer tube in the middle of a stalk. Sometimes the critters will be patient with you while you change tubes, sometimes not.
There are a great number of zoom lenses on the market in focal lengths such as 70-210mm and 80-200mm. Unless you have a premium quality zoom from a major camera maker, I don't recommend them. They just don't have the optical quality necessary for the job. Nikon has come out with a true zoom macro lens, the Micro-Nikkor 70-180mm which is an exception, being a very able performer, but its expensive and 180mm is a little on the short end for dragonflies.
If you already have a macro lens in the 90 to 105mm range you might consider buying a 2X teleconverter. This will give you an effective focal length of 180 to 210mm depending on the length of the original lens. Be forewarned, however, that all teleconverters are not created equal. Some of them are the optical equivalent of smearing vaseline on the front of your lens. Yes, some of them are that bad! A good 2X teleconverter will run at least $150.00. Nikon's 1.4X and 2X teleconverters for the manual focus 200mm f/4 Micro Nikkor run $700.00 each. It wouldn't cost much more to buy a 200mm macro lens in the first place and be done with it. If you own a 105mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor, the 2X teleconverter for that model is $200.00 to $300.00 dollars cheaper than the 2X model available for the 200mm Micro Nikkor. In this case, the cost of the converter would be justified. Id be very wary of using a converter if the lens wasn't a macro lens to begin with, however.
There is another disadvantage inherent in teleconverters. Using a 2X converter will cost you 2 f/stops in light loss. Your 105mm f/2.8 macro will become a 210mm f/5.6 lens. When shooting with flash you will almost always be shooting at apertures smaller than f/5.6 so there's no problem there. Where there is a problem, however, is in focusing. Your viewfinder will get pretty dim when you're shooting on a wooded trail through the woods. With a 1.4X converter there is a 1 stop loss of light, which is tolerable, but it will make a 105mm f/2.8 macro into a 147mm f/4 which is too short a focal length for a lot of dragonfly photography.
The lens I currently use is the 200mm f/4 Micro Nikkor manual focus model. Its sharp as a tack with extremely good contrast and focuses down to a R.R. of 1:2 without extension tubes. Unfortunately, the price is about $1000.00. Relatively speaking, however, its a bargain compared to the autofocus 200mm Micro Nikkor f/4 which focuses to a R.R. of 1:1 (life size) and can also be used as a manual focus lens. This lens is almost double the price of the manual focus 200mm f/4 Micro. If I had a choice, Id choose the expensive model because then Id hardly ever need to mount extension tubes in the field, but money is sometimes the bottom line.
To conclude, my first choice would be a 200mm macro lens. If the price seems prohibitive or your camera manufacturer doesn't offer a macro lens in this focal length, my second choice would be a 90 to 105mm macro lens with the best 2X teleconverter you can get (preferably the one offered by your camera manufacturer). The third option would be a normal 200mm lens with extension tubes. All three of these options will perform well, although the true 200mm macro is easily the best for quality images.
And now, on to the main event.
Electronic flash is the single best way to produce high quality photos with perfectly consistent color temperature regardless of the natural light and beautiful exposures with excellent shadow detail, even in the harshest sunlight.
When most of us think of flash photography, we visualize extremely harsh light with ugly, black as ink shadows. This is a result of using flash in the worst possible way. Electronic flash, at its best, is indistinguishable from the best natural light situation. There are many ways to accomplish this. However, most of these techniques are best used in a controlled environment, such as a studio. In the field our options are very limited. This very limitation makes the solutions much easier to discuss because there are so few of them.
First, never ever use a single flash pointed directly at the dragonfly. This will produce those ugly black shadows and the dragon will look like a suspect in a police interrogation room under a spotlight. There are books and authors out there who claim single head-on flash works but they are shooting with a tripod and balancing the light output of the flash to be the same or slightly less than the intensity of the prevailing natural light. Shooting at 1/250th of a second which I consider necessary for dragons with a 200mm lens and slow speed film (more about film later) pretty much wipes out the chance of balancing your flash output to natural light. Almost all of the light in your exposures will come from the flash(es). Therefore, you need to do something to soften the quality of the light that your flash emits.
There are several ways to accomplish this. I will begin with a flash setup that uses only a single flash unit. This will be the most compact setup that well discuss and it delivers beautiful results. The flash unit, in its normally used way, shoots a blast of unidirectional light straight at the subject. This is what causes the flat harsh quality of the light and those obnoxious black shadows. The light needs to be manipulated in such a way that it reaches the subject from a multitude of angles at once. This will give you the appearance of clean north light still at the correct color temperature (5500 degrees Kelvin) and the multidirectional light can wrap itself around the subject and open up the shadows.
With a single flash unit, this can be done in several ways.
One feature that you want on a flash is the ability to adjust
the flash head to point straight up. You then place a small reflector
by means of Velcro strips, normally provided with the reflector)
on the flash head. In this way, when the flash is fired the light
shoots straight up onto the white surface of the reflector which
mounts at a 45 degree angle to the flash head. 
The
light is then reflected back out and at your subject. This bouncing
and redirection of the light gives it a soft, wraparound quality
that looks remarkably like an ideal natural light shot. This is
my preferred method if I'm using a single flash unit. I currently
use the LumiQuest Pocket Bouncer.
It fastens onto your flash with Velcro strips which are provided
and folds up when removed so its easily slipped into a pocket.
The reflecting surface comes in white and other colors such as
gold. Stick with the white as it maintains the proper color temperature.
To increase the amount of light reaching the subject the reflecting
surface can be lined entirely with aluminum foil. This will let
you shoot at a slightly smaller aperture as it is more unidirectional
than the white surface but it is a slightly harsher light than
you get with the white surface. A good compromise is to attach
a few narrow strips of foil so you have some white reflecting
surface and some foil reflecting surface.
Another method is to place a diffuser over the flash head such as a layer or two of tracing paper or a translucent plastic diffuser which are available from various makers. In this case, the flash head is then aimed directly at the subject. There is less light loss with this method than with the Pocket Bouncer but the resulting light is a little bit harsher but still quite pleasing.
Please note that when using a single bounced flash, always have the flash set on manual or full power to get the full output of the flash every time it fires. Never set it on auto, and always keep the shutter speed set to the fastest speed it will synch electronic flash at, hopefully 1/250th of a second.
Everything in photography is a compromise and bounced flash is no exception. Bouncing the flash in this manner gives you precisely the light that you want but the very act of bouncing it wastes a tremendous amount of light that was initially delivered from the flash. Unfortunately the only way to increase the amount of light without giving up the advantages of bouncing it is to use a more powerful flash. Electronic flash units are particularly subject to the law of diminishing returns. For every small increase in light output there is a very large increase in price.
To understand this better, perhaps I should talk a little bit about Guide Numbers. To keep it simple Guide Numbers are almost always given using ISO 100 speed film. The ever popular Vivitar 285 is listed as having a Guide Number of 120 with 100 speed film. A good way to relate the potential of one Guide Number to another is to realize that the correct aperture to use with a specific guide number at a given distance is to divide the guide number by the distance in feet. Therefore, if your flash has a Guide Number of 120 and you are using 100 speed film and shooting at 5 feet, then the correct aperture would be 120 divided by 5 which equals f/24. In this case f/22 would be close enough. Using the same formula, the correct aperture for a distance of 10 feet would be f/12.
If you are using a film with a speed of 64 the Guide number would be less. Seeing as how ISO 64 speed is 2/3 of a stop slower than ISO 100, the Guide Number for the same flash using 64 speed film would be 120 (the Guide Number with 100 speed film ) multiplied by 2/3 which results in a Guide Number of 80 with 64 speed film.
To demonstrate how much light is lost when bouncing a flash with a reflector such as the Pocket Bouncer, Ill relate my results when using a Metz 45CL1 with the Pocket Bouncer and Kodachrome 64 (ISO 64 speed). With this film speed the Guide Number was 99. Shooting at a distance of 3.5 feet with a 200mm lens for a R.R. of 1:3.5 (a good distance for medium sized dragonflies such as Libellula) the aperture for the correct exposure would be f/28 using the calculations given in the previous paragraph. However, due to the light lost by lens extension (at close distances the lens elements in your lens are further from the film and deliver less light to it; in this case about a loss of 1 1/3 stops) and the loss of light caused by bouncing the flash, the actual correct aperture was f/8. That is a major light loss and costs you dearly in the depth of focus that your images will have. The smaller the aperture you use, the greater the depth of focus you will have and for objects as small as dragonflies great depth of focus is essential.
If I had been using the less powerful Vivitar 285, the exposure would have had to be approximately f/5.6 which is basically unacceptable due to its shallow depth of focus. Even with a monster of a flash, such as the Metz 60CT series, with a Guide Number of 131 with ISO 64 speed film, the aperture for the correct exposure would still be only f/9.5 which I consider to be only borderline effective for depth of focus.
So the Guide Numbers I feel are sufficient when bounced and used as the only light source are from about 99 on up for ISO 64 speed film. These will be some of the biggest portable flash units on the market and even the least powerful flashes in this class, such as the Metz 45CL1 cost close to $300.00 and the Metz 60 series flashes start out at around $550.
There is a less expensive way that actually achieves better results but adds some weight to the setup. This is the method that I have used almost exclusively for the last 3 seasons.
It entails using 2 flash units. The main flash is fired head on, directly at the subject. This flash must have variable power settings. The Guide Number for ISO 100 speed film should be around 120 when used at full power on manual. I set the power setting on this flash at 1/2 power and use 1 layer of tracing paper over the flash tube to soften the light a little bit. The proper aperture to use with this flash alone at a R.R. of 1:3 would be f/13.5 (set the aperture ring on your lens halfway between f/11 and f/16).
The second flash should also have a Guide Number of 120 with ISO 100 speed film. This flash, however, is used at full power, but with a reflector, such as the Pocket Bouncer. The correct aperture to use with this flash alone at a R.R. of 1:3 would be f/8. The light from this flash is 1 1/2 stops less than the light from the main flash and has just enough power to open up all the black shadows that are present from the main, head on flash. It also has that soft, wraparound light quality that so resembles ideal natural light. These two flashes used together result in images that perfectly resemble daylight exposures. The advantages are numerous. First, you can always shoot at 1/250 of a second, even if the day is overcast or even if you're shooting in the dead of night. This is especially handy if you're shooting a larva emerging as an adult at dawn. Camera shake is a thing of the past and you're never at the mercy of the natural light. Second, all your photos have the same color temperature and always display the true colors of your subjects. This is very obvious when you have a large number of slides laid out on a light table. Shots taken in natural light will be all over the color spectrum, ranging from red to gold to green to blue. The shots made with the 2 flash setup will all have the same color quality and the colors between every slide can be directly compared without making any allowances for differing conditions when they were shot. Third, you are always able to shoot at small apertures, ensuring the depth of focus so necessary for dragonfly photography.
It's not strictly necessary to have flash units with the Guide Numbers mentioned above. What is most important is to have the fill flash (the bounced flash) exposure be within 1 to 1 1/2 stops of being as bright as the main flash. If your fill flash has a higher Guide Number than 120 with ISO 100 speed film, then you can increase the power level on the main flash and shoot at even smaller apertures. The setup above is what I use and it works out well for me. With this setup the exposures for different R.R.s when using Kodachrome 64 (ISO 64 speed) are as follows: 1:5 = f/9.5, 1:4 = f/11, 1:3 = f/13.5, 1:2 = f/16, 1:1 = f/13.5, all shot at 1/250th of a second or your fastest flash synch speed. R.R. of 1:1 is obtained with extension tubes mounted on my 200mm f/4 Micro Nikkor. The exposure of f/13.5 results from the fact that although I'm closer to the subject than I am at 1:2, the light loss resulting from the use of extension tubes diminishes the light reaching the film more the closer distance of the flashes increases the light reaching it.
Equipment varies so I would recommend doing a series of test exposures at home before using this setup in the field. The way I do it is to stand up an 8" x 10" Kodak gray card near the edge of a table and place some leaves, stones, and an acetoned dragonfly specimen in front of the card. Shoot a series of exposures at different distances with different apertures, keeping detailed written notes on every exposure as to distances and apertures. With a setup similar to what I use, I'd suggest shooting exposures equal to, 1 stop larger, and one stop smaller than those that I use.
When you get the test roll back, study it closely, pick out the best exposure for each distance and head for the field. As long as you don't change any components in your setup you'll always have properly exposed images with good quality light and consistent color temperature.
Happy shooting,
Dave Westover
If you have any comments on the article or on any problems you've had or any problems you've solved, I'd like to hear from you. E-mail me at westoverdave@hotmail.com
Back
to the MOS Home Page 
Onward to Dave's Photos!