"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 5/19/2012 1:44 PM, Frank S wrote:

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 5/18/2012 10:13 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2012 21:00:29 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/13/2012 4:02 PM, Bowser wrote:

snip

Some of us have jobs. And some of us have no macro gear, so I'll have
to improvise.
Not sure what you sue, but some inexpensive suggestions.

Extension tube;
Optical close up lens
enlarge a portion of your image.

The mandate is macro or close-up. I've been shooting close-ups for
years - and will submit three to the current SI - and don't own any
macro gear.


Yes I was simply offering inexpensive alternatives to Bowser, if he
wanted to shoot macro.



While we are picking nits: unless the original image is recorded by
macro or in closeup, enlarging a portion of an image is not within the
spirit of the mandate, my view.

It seems to me that the technique is immaterial. If one visualizes the
image prior to capture, why should the lack of equipment matter.



Well, sure. Why should there be mandates at all? My principal objection to
some past exhibitions has been that the author didn't seem to acknowledge
the mandate at all, just chose an image, barely identifiable in some cases
as a photograph, and set it before the assembly.

On another but related tack: I'd say that a frame-filling or larger image of
a jet plane in flight or a racing car at speed might well qualify as "close
up" to ordinary mortals with normal fear reflexes.


--
Frank ess