Ken,
Mayflies come in a wide range of sizes. Where I live, our largest is about 25mm body length, and our smallest is about 3 mm. (Tails and legs are extra.)
I think your other picture is also a subimago. The wings of the adults that I know are
very clear. If you want to pursue the question, you can capture these things and keep them in a jar overnight. They don't eat anything, so there's not much care required. Chances are, you'll soon have a much different mayfly, and a cast skin. (My screen doors are covered with the skins right now -- we had a hatch last week.)
The second fly image does show the wings better, but it's a tough call. They're both good shots. The detail problem is hard to solve. That Sigma 150 that you and Judy Melanson use looks like an awesome lens, able to resolve detail finer than the sensor in your camera. So you're definitely going to lose detail when you shrink your images for the web. The challenge is how to avoid the
impression of losing detail.
I'm guessing that your original image may even resolve individual facets in the eyes. The problem is, they're so small that when you do the 5X or so reduction to web size, the facets all blur together and give a matte appearance that the viewer may misinterpret. Sometimes that appearance can be avoided by aggressive sharpening (ok,
oversharpening), but that has its problems too and I really can't recommend it. Another approach is to use an accompanying cropped image or a detail inset like the third picture at
this post. I suppose it's even possible to plan ahead and frame the original to leave a good place for the inset, but I've never managed
that trick.
Hey, at the risk of going off-topic, how are things going with that Peru trip?
--Rik
