[SI] Macro/Closeup

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup

--
The Committee

On 2012-05-29 17:21:36 -0700, SI Committee
said:

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup

OK!

That was a not too shabby turnout, with a fair mix of closeup & macro.
So let's see what I can do with my comment contribution. I will try not
to be too cruel

Tim Conway:
Macro-01:
The Metaxa label is just right, with the exception of some of the
reflection off the metallic lettering the detail is well captured.
Macro-02:
I like the idea of the strawberries, but I would have preferred the
berries to have been in focus rather than the decorative edge of the
plate. So the detail of your center piece is missing.
Macro-03:
This is another case of confusing the subject with focus issues. I
would have preferred to see the detail of the bite. The "York" logo is
so well known, having that OOF and all the detail of the bite visible
in all its glory would have made for the more interesting image.

Yours truly, Savageduck:
MacroCloseup-01:
My real beef with this shot was the car's owner was nowhere in sight
and I didn't want to touch his car to get rid of that last bit of wax
around the emblem.
MacroCloseup-02:
It is always nice to find something prior to the parent company being
bought out by a giant.
MacroCloseup-03:
There were two Buicks available, one with this raw emblem, and one with
a restoration chrome job. I went with the one with character.

Richard Anderson: (Glad to see you threw one our way!)
Fungi on Gravestone:
Interesting color for a fungus on a gravestone. I was surprised to see
such a shallow DOF at f/7.1. I can only guess this was on a corner, not
one of the flat surfaces.

Bowser:
Macro-01:
Nice retention of the detail in the dandelion on the verge of
detonation, emphasized by the shallow DOF. The B&W treatment works.
Macro-02:
This shot does not work as a B&W. The full color and texture of the
rusty surface would have been a better way to go.
Macro-03:
Again, I would have preferred to have seen this showing the metallic
surface au natural. Perhaps in a little closer on the crown detail
would have made it a tad more interesting. An interesting piece none
the less.

Sid:
Closeup-01:
Nice! I can only guess at the subject, and I suspect what is in focus
is a drilled brake disc. I am probably wrong. The important thing is
you have created an interesting image, which provokes the question,
"What am I?"
Closeup-02:
OK, flower, but I find the odd DOF not to my liking. Either go for a
wider DOF, or bring it in so tight that all the petals are OOF and the
stamen in sharp detail.
Closeup-03:
This one is better, the green background emphasizes the entire flower.

Frank Ess:
Macro-01:
OK! Frank, which is the subject, the hose coupling, the ant, or the
bee? I can only wish the bee wasn't there.
Macro-02:
This I like! My deductive eyeball tells me that this is the top
mechanism of a pair of clip-ons, made into a mystery machine via superb
macro work.
Macro-03:
I am not sure what you have here, but I am certain that doesn't matter.
It is both interesting and mysterious, and has me scratching my head.

Dan Pet
Macro-01:
Love your Alfa!

Bob Flint:
Macro-01:
Escargot on the hoof. Nice shot, but I would have preferred to have
seen a true macro aimed at the shell pattern of the snail on the upper
right. That is a great pattern and I think it might have worked better
isolated.
Macro-02:
Nice dandelion shot. The elements of the flower have great detail
retention, highlighted by the OOF background. I like this.
Macro-03:
Interesting idea, but there is just something wrong with this shot. I
suspect it is way too busy. I look at the overall image and feel that
less would have been much more in this case.

Andrew Reilly:
Closeup-01:
OK. this one does not work for me in any way. It might have seemed an
interesting shot in the moment, but it is what it is, a shot up through
a tree.
Closeup-02:
Again, I can see what you had in mind, but for me it is just a DOF
exercise as a prelude to your next shot.
Closeup-01:
....and here you got it right. A closeup of the tendril winding its way
up grill/trellis. The background is nicely OOF. Here I would have
cropped tighter on your subject.

MG:
Macro-Azalea:
Big Pink!! Just too much flower for me.
Macro-CraneFlower:
Here is one I am familiar with, the Strelitzia. This is a nice enough
shot, but I think I would have chosen to isolate one of the elements of
that complexed flower, and gone in much closer. What you have given us
is not quite a closeup, and definitely not a macro.
Macro-Ladybirds:
Nice textured mass of ladybirds/bugs. However I am a tad troubled that
this shot is spoiled by being just out of focus. A great opportunity,
not quite achieved.

Chemiker:
Macro-01:
That is a beauty. Great detail shown. I like it.
Macro-02:
I guess it is a macro, but I would have ditched the two columns and
moved in closer on the "Treasure chest".

Martha Coe: (& no Bob!!!)
Macro-01:
Sorry Martha. :-( I know you were trying to show us the blue bells, but
I would have preferred a closer closeup on a single flower, or a macro
of the detail of a single bud.
Macro-02:
I am afraid there are just too many OOF issues with this shot for my
over pollenated eye to deal with.
Macro-03:
As with your first shot, this one can't quite decide if it is an
overall shot of the flowers or a closeup. It just doesn't make it as a
closeup for me.

Peter Newman:
Macro-Dahlia:
Very interesting effect with that coloration against the black
background field. I think I might have chosen a slightly different
frame idea, but all in all a good piece. What was with the f/16?
Macro-Orchid:
OK! I love this shot. Capturing the bizarre shape and curves with the
whites, yellows, tans, and black all working together.

Alan Browne:
Macro-01:
Hey! It's 17:20, and you were up close.
Macro-02:
Nice spider, good detail on the abdomen, but even at f/8 you have a few
detracting focus issues.
Macro-03:
Now this is the work I have come to expect of you. Good detail up front
and good fade to DOF OOF up top.

Overall an interesting bunch, thanks for playing folks.

BTW Tony C, were you sitting this one out? If yours are late, I will
crucify you later.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 29 May 2012 19:17:04 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

On 2012-05-29 17:21:36 -0700, SI Committee
said:

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup

OK!

Indeed! Many photos here, so I'm afraid that my comments will probably
wind up brief-ish, or I'll be here all night...

Tim Conway:
Macro-01: I liked the colour and the detail, was a little uncomfortable
about the effect of the uneven lighting on the metallic lettering to the
left, and the slightly-out-of-focus U.
Macro-02: There seems to be an odd thing going on with the hard edge at
the junction between the top of the strawberries and the white plate, but
I suppose that could be a coding artifact. I can see detail in the cut
slice of the one on the right, but it still seems a bit out of focus.
Really sharp knife leaving too-smooth a surface?
Macro-03: This one doesn't seem quite right: dull colours or something.
Old film?

Savageduck:
MacroCloseup-01: Lovely detail, colour and saturation. I like the scuff-
marks on the chrome: stops the whole thing from looking like a CGI.
MacroCloseup-02: Nice all around, and great look to the chrome. If you'd
been a bit more straight-on to the badge, the far edge might not be
drifting out of your DOF.
MacroCloseup-03: Great character, but still clearly looked-after. All
good with the framing and lighting, too.

Richard Anderson:
Fungi on Gravestone: Cool colour, and interesting texture. Lighting
looks a little harsh. Flash?

Bowser:
Macro-01: Very nice detail and separation from the background.
Macro-02: I like this, but it feels like two different photos that don't
quite go together. The top half has interesting texture and that one
crack, and the bottom half has that great hole, rust bubbles and the
mystery of the inside, but it feels a bit odd as a whole. Maybe I just
need to see it on a larger monitor.
Macro-03: I like everything about this one. One of my favourites of the
set.

Sid:
Closeup-01: This one is probably my favourite of the set. Floating
(motorcycle?) brake disks, right?
Closeup-02: Nice detail of the stamens, but the petals don't grip me.
Closeup-03: Great exposure, nice light, and beautifully deep green
background.

Frank Ess:
Macro-01: While I love the texture on the hose fitting, I can't help
thinking that the bee was supposed to be the focus, but it isn't.
Macro-02: Great, sharp focus with lovely light on an interesting piece of
mechanism. Bravo!
Macro-03: Battery terminals? Very mysterious. Moody.

Dan Pet
Macro-01:

Bob Flint:
Macro-01: I love the idea of a snail-race, and the notion that one of
them couldn't sit still long enough to take the photo.
Macro-02: Another very nicely done dandelion.
Macro-03:

Andrew Reilly:
Closeup-1: Lacking an actual Macro lens, I tried to make a pun on "close
up", but Savage Duck is right: it conveys the notion of "up" without
actually being an interesting photo...
Closeup-2: This was actually the second go, which I took because I
thought the light might be a bit better from this angle, and the
background a little distracting. I don't mind the effect, but I like -3
better.
Closeup-3: I should have just gone with this one...

MG:
Macro-Azalea: I think this one needs to be either a bit closer (to get
the stamen detail) or a bit further away (to get the contrasting dark
green leaves in).
Macro-CraneFlower: Nice shot, well lit.
Macro-Ladybirds: Neat! I've never seen them like that. Perhaps a little
closer, to crop out the bark on the lower left?

Chemiker:
Macro-01: Nice shot of an interesting butterfly. Good separation from
the background and good exposure.
Macro-02: Not sure I get this one. The complete blackness of the
background gives it a Twin-Peaks kind of feel, but it's very stark.

Martha Coe:
Macro-01: The light is quite dull, perhaps overcast, which is sapping
some definition.
Macro-02: This one also needs a little more direct light, I think. I
like the crinkly detail of the central petals, though.
Macro-03: Nice shot of the flowers, but not especially close-up or macro.

Peter Newman:
Macro-Dahlia: Quite an abstract effect with the strong light and fully-
black background. Striking.
Macro-orchid: Great exposure, and close enough to be nearly abstract, but
not so close that it can't be recognised. Love the colours.

Alan Browne:
Macro-01: Yep, that's close.
Macro-02: I expected more creature photos for a macro set, but this one
makes up for the lack. Love the way the back-light shines through the
body.
Macro-03: Lovely detail and great textures. I think I would have
preferred more of it to be in focus, but as it is the selective focus
emphasises the gnarly shape quite nicely.

Thanks all!

Cheers,

--
Andrew Reilly

On 30 May 2012 12:15:08 GMT, Andrew Reilly
wrote:



Bowser:
Macro-01: Very nice detail and separation from the background.
Macro-02: I like this, but it feels like two different photos that don't
quite go together. The top half has interesting texture and that one
crack, and the bottom half has that great hole, rust bubbles and the
mystery of the inside, but it feels a bit odd as a whole. Maybe I just
need to see it on a larger monitor.

Hey, I took a shot... ;-)

Macro-03: I like everything about this one. One of my favourites of the
set.


Thanks, I liked the detail on the helmet and teh B&W conversion
allowed me to enhance the detail without creating color distractions.

On 5/29/2012 10:17 PM, Savageduck wrote:


snip


Peter Newman:
Macro-Dahlia:
Very interesting effect with that coloration against the black
background field. I think I might have chosen a slightly different frame
idea, but all in all a good piece. What was with the f/16?
Macro-Orchid:
OK! I love this shot. Capturing the bizarre shape and curves with the
whites, yellows, tans, and black all working together.



Thanks for your comments. The frame color is the same as one of the
colors inside the flowers. I agree that the frame on the dahlia is
distracting. In retrospect, I also should have shown more of the center
of the flower.



Technical:
For some reason the EXIF data did not show that flash was used. A basic
analysis shows that ISO 320 f16 at 1/3200 sec is not sufficient
exposure, unless I used studio lighting, which I did not. I put a 20mm
extension tube on my 70-200.


--
Peter

On Tue, 29 May 2012 19:17:04 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-05-29 17:21:36 -0700, SI Committee
said:

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup


Chemiker:
Macro-01:
That is a beauty. Great detail shown. I like it.

Thanks for the comments. For Macro-01:

It's about subject control. This little beauty is less and an hour out
of the cocoon, on my kitchen table. The leaves are of the branchlet I
cut and brought in with the cocoon just for this purpose. Nothing
special, done with a P90 P&S camera.


Macro-02:
I guess it is a macro, but I would have ditched the two columns and
moved in closer on the "Treasure chest".

This image was designed to have no context. The columns were placed in
it to set up some symmetry in the overall effect. The real challenge
was to highlight the jewels (all genuine) AND get good surface tone
and detail on the columns. I am not satisfied with the result, and
maybe I should have HDR'd it. To bring out the specular highlights in
the jewels (which profits from point-source bare-bulb lighting) I used
a single 45watt Reveal Mini-flood, at about 7 o'clock and 75 degrees,
2 1/2 feet away. Unfortunately, this tends to blow out the columns as
white highlights. Had I used an umbrella, I could get great tone on
the columns, but I lose the sparkle of the jewels. This shot was a
compromise and proves I need more work on lighting.

actually I don't consider this a macro shot. I think macro starts at
maybe 1:1 images (and up to 10:1 imageobject), which this isn't. It's
more properly a close-up, which for me starts about 1:10 and ends at
1:1. Most table-top pix IMHO are close-up shots.

On Wed, 30 May 2012 11:04:22 -0500, Chemiker
wrote:

On Tue, 29 May 2012 19:17:04 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-05-29 17:21:36 -0700, SI Committee
said:

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup


Chemiker:
Macro-01:
That is a beauty. Great detail shown. I like it.

Thanks for the comments. For Macro-01:

It's about subject control. This little beauty is less and an hour out
of the cocoon, on my kitchen table. The leaves are of the branchlet I
cut and brought in with the cocoon just for this purpose. Nothing
special, done with a P90 P&S camera.

Correction, which is obvious if you check the EXIF: I didn't shoot
that one with the P90, but an older Nikon E4500 P&S. The 4500 is a 4.2
MP camera, compared to the 12.2 for the P90.

Sorry for the memory lapse.

A

On Tue, 29 May 2012 19:17:04 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:



Bowser:
Macro-01:
Nice retention of the detail in the dandelion on the verge of
detonation, emphasized by the shallow DOF. The B&W treatment works.
Macro-02:
This shot does not work as a B&W. The full color and texture of the
rusty surface would have been a better way to go.

I tried it both ways, and it's just preference. I guess I'm in a B&W
mood lately. I preferred the texture and shades of gray to the
somewhat annoying yellow colors of the original.

Macro-03:
Again, I would have preferred to have seen this showing the metallic
surface au natural. Perhaps in a little closer on the crown detail
would have made it a tad more interesting. An interesting piece none
the less.

The color shot didn't have a lot of color, and wasn't contrasty at the
right places to enhance the surface detail. I thought the B&W
converstion allowed me to enhance contrast and give a much better look
at the detail of the piece. BTW, the exhibit, Pompei, was awesome.

On 2012-05-29 17:21:36 -0700, SI Committee
said:

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup

OK!
[...]

Frank Ess:
Macro-01:
OK! Frank, which is the subject, the hose coupling, the ant, or the bee? I
can only wish the bee wasn't there.

To my eye the subject was the tension between the bee and the ant. I'm
interested in knowing how to make that more obvious. I realize the OOF bee
fuzz distracts, and perhaps more equally-divided attention might have made
it easier to lose track of the details and focus on the space.

The camera on the two new photos is the little folded-lightpath pocket
Panasonic. Water and shock-resistant to twelve feet and
four-feet-to-concrete, respectively. I am very pleased with its ability to
get right in there and look at stuff. A little grainy at times, but what the
hey?

Macro-02:
This I like! My deductive eyeball tells me that this is the top mechanism
of a pair of clip-ons, made into a mystery machine via superb macro work.

Yes, clip-ons. Mr BluBlocker failed to properly calculate the forces
required to keep the U-shaped spring arm in place, and once displaced the
clip is robbed of its flip-up capability. This photo and one other persuaded
the vendor to send me a fresh pair without my having to return the busted
ones.

Back in the day I used to delight in the pages of a monthly magazine, either
*Reader's Digest* or *Coronet* or something of that ilk, that presented
mystery photos of the kind of details shown here and named their true selves
in the Answers section.

Although the EXIF says flash wasn't used, I'm certain it was, in both
photos.

Macro-03:
I am not sure what you have here, but I am certain that doesn't matter. It
is both interesting and mysterious, and has me scratching my head.


Speaking of mystery photos: would the phrase "snap shot" be a good clue? I
remember a discussion on one of these forums about visual puns. I still
maintain there is no such thing: without language, whatever is offered as a
"pun" may be clever and amusing, but there has to be another word to
describe that concept. If there is a word in your mind, it can't be a purely
visual phenomenon.

This image was on transparency film, by fluorescent desk-lamp light, seems
to have been done with my newly-acquired 50mm Canon Macro lens, which would
make it very early 1980s, if I recall correctly. Camera could have been
either a Canon AE-1, AE-1p, or A-1. The subject is male (body) snaps along
the opening side of a case that holds a 500mm Tamron reflex lens. The female
components are on the flap.


Thank y'all for your comments. Mine:

Tim Conway - OUZO: It's a nicely designed label, well-represented; I see the
reflective bits on the dark and blue lettering as allowing me to appreciate
the third-dimensions in the image.

Tim Conway - Strawbs: Just one thing I don't like about this image: it
stimulates my old-fashioned DON'T CUT THINGS OFF WITH THE EDGE OF THE FRAME
reflex. (I am very tolerant of misplaced out-of-focus-ness, as much of my
output demonstrates.)

Tim Conway - York: The cut-off doesn't seem to matter as much for inanimate
objects as opposed to (fomerly) living fruits. I'd have liked the candy
paste's color to match better with its memorable taste/feeling. Whiter, I
mean, more contrasty with the chocolate. Hard to get that and a reasonable
reflective surface.


Duck's MG emblem: As an MG fanatic and owner (still have the fifth sitting
behind the house awaiting restoration or lightning strike) any view of the
octagon produces an uptick in my ticker-rate. I like it, like especially the
evidence of recent but not thorough cleaning/waxing. I know which end of the
car this is on, so my old-fashioned LEAVE MORE ROOM IN FRONT OF THE SUBJECT
FOR SOME TRAVEL, ESPECIALLY IN SUBJECTS KNOWN TO TRAVEL reflex came into
play. (Move the MG left of center.) Nice play among the colors.

Duck's Dodge emblem: Once again, nice play among the colors; centering the
emblem is not as bothersome in a more-straight-on image.

Duck's Buick: My kind of closeup. I'm grateful for the view, and for the
fact that this memorable insignia has not been polished to meet the demands
of some kind of cleanliness fetish. Can't ask for a better presentation of a
worldly object.


Richard Anderson's Fungus: The more I look at it, the more I think there is
some upper right-to-lower left motion in it. I'm pretty sure it's not as
active as it looks. Orange is the color of insanity, according to some; I
know I will remember this image when - if - I ever eat cornflakes again.


Bowser's dandelion - I think I know that guy: always will do anything to
stand out from his more conservative neighbors. He's a remarkable dude, but
how long does that last?

Bowser's rusty tractor - I think if this were in color I'd have missed some
of the delicious textures on the flat parts. As it is, I am entranced,
wondering how the rust picked its path(s) through the metal. No doubt this
is one I'll be coming back to.

Bowser's helmet - Nice, interesting capture, this one has the kind of detail
that probably operates equally well in either mono- or multi-chrome. I can
see the supporting structure, but can't quite make sense of the bright
element down there; must be a chinstrap or a cheek guard? Would hiding it be
a Good Idea? I dono.


Sid's brake disks - Liking the three-D-ness of the image, something that
isn't always available or desirable in close-ups. Another instance where I'd
bet the color version would be inferior. The shape's the thing. I don't know
about motorcycles, but the use of drilled rotors on heavier cars has been
pretty much outmoded by the introduction of pad compounds that do not
produce the "outgassing" phenomenon resolved by the holes. Of course their
cosmetic contribution in some applications is undeniable.

Sid's pink flower - I never can remember which is a stamen and which is a
pistil, or vice versa. I do know they are a problem to photograph, and you
either have to decide equitable focus is a minor concern, or give up. I'd
rather look at a picture of something than of nothing, which is what you get
if you give up. Perhaps I'd get some worthwhile lessons if someday we have a
"Pistil Mandate". It might have been better in this image to either show
more petal, or show less petal. I don't think I'd be able to decide, either.
Which is not the same as giving up, but headed that way.

Sid's daisy or daisy-like flower - Very clear, very appealing, very well
done.


Dan Petre's Alfa model - Marvelous. Used as I am to brighter, catalog-like
models photos, I like to see one more real-world-like. Nicely atmospheric, a
welcome change of pace.


Bob Flint's snails - I'm just going to appreciate and enjoy this one, being
glad that one of them seems to be contemplating a different path than one
taken by the herd.

Bob Flint's dandelion - Well done, easy to look at and like. Surely meets
the mandate and rings all the right bells.

Bob Flint's white flowers - Very impressive depth of focus. Wonderful detail
and very evocative of the atmosphere in pleasant surroundings. I wonder if a
closer crop to eliminate the start of a second compact mass at the right
edge might be as pleasing.


Andrew Reilly's tree - I don't think this stretches the mandate so much; we
are surely standing close and looking up. And of course it's hard to not
like a tree, but I'm not that much of a hugger, so I don't get that close
that much.

Andrew Reilly's jasmine tendrils - Oooh! Oooh! Jasmine! Such lively beings,
eh? Almost as lively as Morning Glory, which will take over *everything* if
you are not careful. I'd probably have cropped a little differently, or
maybe have moved just a bit to the left to have the tendril backed by more
of the dark - if I'd been able to look far enough to see the possibility,
which in all honesty is not that likely. I've forgotten which of the
mandates I put my jasmine tendril picture in, but it's here somewhere.


MG's azalea - Very. Pink. Presence. Enjoyable, certainly; hard to dislike or
improve upon without fracturing the buzz.

MG's crane flower - Very. Pointed. Presence. Good angles in the frame. Would
some shallowing of the focus made the underpinnings less of an intrusion;
only after a lingering view did they put themselves forward.

MG's ladybirds - ...bugs in my lingo. Good contrast between the regularity
of the individuals' patterns and the flow of their comings-together, as well
as the patch of unpopulated bark. I'd be more excited if nature had provided
them with brighter colors, as our local ladybirdbugs display.


Chemiker's lovely old butterfly - Multiple As.

Chemiker's chest with columns - Somehow it all seems so cheerful to me. I
can feel the delight awaiting within, but I'm not much of a jewelist, so the
scale is not quickly obvious to me. The uncertainty doesn't hurt my
appreciation of the classic tidbits. No reasonable cure for this, but none
really necessary, either.


Martha Coe's Spanish bluebells - What did she do with the *good* pictures of
these attractive flowers? I see little to recommend this image: nature gave
us these things to enjoy, in person or vicariously, but it isn't always easy
to make them poignant. Centered and too much extraneous detail?

Martha Coe's rhododendron - Nice enough. A little closer crop, maybe?

Martha Coe's rhododendron fudge - Not close enough. If I'd seen this one
first I might have let it slide, but she showed she knew what close is, and
she didn't do it here.


Peter Newman's Dahlia - Good colors, very lively, reminds me of a lady of
the evening I once new. She was called Dahlia, and just loved bursting onto
a scene.

Peter Newman's orchid - Fascinating; all the elements are so suggestive of
I-don't-know-what, or if I do, I'd rather not say, here. Textures and colors
survived the reality-to-screen transition. Good.

Peter Newman's dahlia - Nice drawing. Very attractive, well-oriented,
appealing colors.


Alan Browne's Time's up! - Pressed the Snooze button once too often, did
you? Even the MacMaster misses from time to time, I guess.

Alan Browne's itsy bitsy - Much more like it. Good detail in the in-focus
parts. It is "eensy beensy" in some dialects.

Alan Browne's mushroom - I really like the mushroom textures, marks and all.
Do I need that much table?


Tony Cooper's available - I like everything about it: colors, detail,
angles. Possible prize-winner.

Tony Cooper's pretty face - Ditto.

Tony Cooper's in bloom - Ditto.


That's the best I can do. Thank you for your kind attention.

Frank Sheffield
San Diego CA
USA

On 2012-05-29 22:17 , Savageduck wrote:

Alan Browne:
Macro-01:
Hey! It's 17:20, and you were up close.

Close to deadline.

Macro-02:
Nice spider, good detail on the abdomen, but even at f/8 you have a few
detracting focus issues.

Get thee a macro then tell me. This was shot at 1:1 on a spider about
1/2 inch long. Hand held which challenged getting the focus right
(focus by swaying in and out). This was the best of about 15 shots from
several angles.

(I also forgot to dial up the shutter speed from the available light
shot I was making before he decided to visit my hair...)

It's the best "insect" shot I've ever made to be sure.

Macro-03:
Now this is the work I have come to expect of you. Good detail up front
and good fade to DOF OOF up top.

Yeah - as desired. Boring though.

--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.