Shallow Depth

[Overread]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3412/3505875686_d098f06720.jpg
F6.3, ISO 200, 1/200sec
Taken with canon 400D, Sigma 150mm macro, 1.4 teleconverter (sigma), Speedlite 580M2 and lumiquest softbox
larger: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3412/3505875686_eebf36e0fe_o.jpg
100% crop here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24534478@N04/3489250597/

A shot taken in Wisly Gardens at their butterfly display eariler in the year.

My original aim was a butterfly portrait - so I moved in closer for the head, focused as best as I could on the eye and took the shot with a portrait view in mind (I later got a shot "as close as I could" of the insect). In that respect I feel that I have got what I was after, though I do wonder if the overall composition could be better in some way - though I respect that its a bit centered I do wonder about other factors - often I get people wondering if I could have got all the antenna into the shot for example.

Further I have done something very different with the aperture - instead of my normal f8-f13 range (with the odd reach to f16 when I need it) I have used a wider aperture of f6.3, an aperture that I normally never reach for and use. In this case I was either experimenting at the time or I hit the wheel by accident - regardless I have now got a shot with a very creamy bokeh (without resorting to image stacking) though I am wondering if the depth of field is too fine in this shot as it is.

ps - remembering the left to right viewing this shot might want flipping - but for some reason I find it hard to judge this "need" in a shot since I seem to not mind it when my attention stops - at least on one of my own images, not really put this to the test with others work as yet.

[Hertz van Rental]

The shot is fine as is.
We tend to not bother looking at things that are out of focus in anything more than a general way. The DoF as it is renders the major points of interest as sharp and relegates most other elements to the background. This makes the 'face' - in particular the eye - the central object.
The composition works in this orientation - the eye travels left to right and hits the bulk of the insect. The darkness of the flower pulls the gaze down and stops it exiting frame left so the eye moves back in to the frame and naturally finds the insect eye again.
Lighting is good. Composition is good. Framing is good. DoF is good.
All in all it does all you can ask of it.
I think you would have to work very hard to produce anything better - and as no improvements come to mind it would have to happen by accident. ;)

[Overread]

Many thanks Hertz :) -- but now I need a bigger hat after that ;)

Interestingly one person I spoke to about this shot recomended darkening the back out of focus leg so that it blended more into the background of the shot.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3405/3543506564_546e24eef2.jpg

After comparing the two shots I can understand the move since I have also found/been told that the eye reaches to the brighter areas of the shot first - and I don't want that to be the bright leg.

[Hertz van Rental]

Personally I think the difference is only marginal and more a matter of taste than anything else.
I prefer the un-darkened shot.
Darkening out of focus objects has the effect of making them look sharper so they can become more intrusive.
With that leg lighter it may draw the eye there first but it brings the eye to the insects head, which the eye latches on to because it has detail.
I also think the lighter image makes the insect's head 'pop' more.
But it's your image so it's your preference that matters.