On 5/20/2012 4:13 PM, Frank S wrote:

"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.

Probably guilty, though I admit to stretching the subject. For me
photography is a relaxing hobby. The mandate got me out shooting for
about 15 minutes today.


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.

Of course! "Close up" is an imprecise, relative term. What might be far
away for your racing car, would be much too close for shooting an
explosion. (depending of course on the size of the explosion.






--
Peter