Insect macros

Has anyone ever sold a macro shot of a fly, a spider or a any other
insect except to a book or magazine publisher?

It seems to me there's a few cretins wasting an awful lot of time
taking worthless macro photos of common insects and using very
expensive gear to do it... For no purpose other than to waste even
more time and money posting the pics for group comment.

Is there a hidden agenda here somewhere or have digital cameras
produced a whole new generation of happy snappers with an over
abundance of ego and an under supply of imagination?

Douglas wrote:
Has anyone ever sold a macro shot of a fly, a spider or a any other
insect except to a book or magazine publisher?
Does it matter? If it is sold, does it matter if the buyer
is a book or a bloke off the street?

The majority of people take photos for their own enjoyment,
not for financial gain. Until Brett recently posted his fly,
I'd never seen what a fly's tongue looks like. I've never
wondered, but it was certainly a "wow" moment in our
household (albeit short-lived). I would never buy a 30x20"
print of the fly. I probably wouldn't look at the photo
again. But I'm sure when Brett took the photo he said wow,
just as I did. And for that, the time he spent taking the
photo was worthwhile.

It seems to me there's a few cretins wasting an awful lot of time
taking worthless macro photos of common insects and using very
expensive gear to do it... For no purpose other than to waste even
more time and money posting the pics for group comment.
That's the thing about a hobby. It doesn't matter that you
use expensive gear. You don't have to justify your gear
purchases by the income that it earns, you justify it by the
enjoyment it brings you.

My other two main hobbies other than photography, are model
railway and aquariums. Both are money holes, but I enjoy
doing it. Is model railway a waste of time, because I will
never take a paying passenger? Should I instead buy a real
locomotive, some carriages, and start a business of it? Are
my aquariums a waste of time because I will never have
paying customers come to look at my fish, like they do at
"Underwater World"?

Personally, in my current financial situation, I can't
justify huge expense on photography gear, so I get by with
kit lenses and just a couple of extras that I managed to
pick up cheap. If I was to post links of my photos, there
would be criticism that it isn't sharp, etc etc etc. I don't
care, I didn't take the photos to sell, I took them for me
to enjoy. I do enjoy seeing the photos from Brett, Troy,
Mark, occasionally Rita, and even yourself. They serve as
inspiration, and the praise and constructive criticisms from
the group give hints to help me improve my own stuff.

Your recent frangipani shot was a perfect example of this. I
wouldn't be happy with that shot if I took it, because of
that piece of dead grass that I mentioned. So I made a
mental note to myself, that if I try a similar type of shot,
to watch for stuff like that. In theory, my own work should
improve. In practice - well we'll wait and see lol.


Is there a hidden agenda here somewhere or have digital cameras
produced a whole new generation of happy snappers with an over
abundance of ego and an under supply of imagination?
Without doubt there is an abundance of happy snappers. But
consider this. By far the vast majority of photos that are
taken, printed, put in albums or frames, and then looked at
repeatedly over the years, are NOT professional photographs.
They are happy snaps.

Actually I would give this advice to all the photo posters
out there - in addition to your spiders, flies, flowers,
boats in Manly harbour etc where you are striving for
technical excellence, take some happy snaps - especially of
your family. In 5 years, 10 years, 20 years etc, when you
are looking at your photos, I can guarantee you that it will
be the happy snaps of your family that you get more pleasure
looking at.

* Douglas is quoted & my replies are inline below :
Has anyone ever sold a macro shot of a fly, a spider or a any other
insect except to a book or magazine publisher?

I haven't sold any of my photos of flies, spiders, or any other
insects. I take my photos for my own personal enjoyment,
relaxation, and learning. I wouldn't sell a photo of a
frangipani, if I ever took one, either.

It seems to me there's a few cretins wasting an awful lot of time

I'm not a cretin, and I'm not wasting time. I take time to
wander around parks and gardens to take my mind off work, relax,
and just enjoy the moment.

taking worthless macro photos of common insects and using very

You seem to think, incorrectly, that making money off photos
makes them worthless.

One of the macro gurus who I hugely respect has been approached
by schools to use his photos to show students the anatomy of
insects and spiders. I think that would be worthwhile and
extremely rewarding, and much more exciting and enlightening to
the students to see photos rather than drawings. Not sure if he
made money from it. I know he does make money off magazine shots
- enough to pay for all his gear and more.

Haven't read of any occurrences of schools approaching anyone to
obtain photos of frangipannis or pelicans to teach the younger
generation.

expensive gear to do it... For no purpose other than to waste even
more time and money posting the pics for group comment.

I would think my whole kit is cheaper than yours. The only
macro-specific gear I own is the lens, around AU$600 IIRC. Rest
of the gear you'd probably find in your own kit - flash,
off-camera shoe chord, flash bracket.

Is there a hidden agenda here somewhere or have digital cameras
produced a whole new generation of happy snappers with an over
abundance of ego and an under supply of imagination?

Don't know about the "happy snappers" comment - I'm still
learning, although I do like to think I spend a little more time
than the typical happy snapper on composition and processing.

Over abundance of ego? Not me. I post to learn. Read the sig.

Under-supply of imagination? Sure - I'm not the most creative
person. I'm an engineer, maths background. I wonder how many of
your wedding shots have never been done before. I know I've seen
flowers, pelicans, and beaches before.

--
Troy Piggins
Please feel free to provide constructive criticism on any photos I post. I'm
always learning and appreciate feedback.

"Douglas" wrote in message
...
Has anyone ever sold a macro shot of a fly, a spider or a any other
insect except to a book or magazine publisher?

It seems to me there's a few cretins wasting an awful lot of time
taking worthless macro photos of common insects and using very
expensive gear to do it... For no purpose other than to waste even
more time and money posting the pics for group comment.

Is there a hidden agenda here somewhere or have digital cameras
produced a whole new generation of happy snappers with an over
abundance of ego and an under supply of imagination?

One of the nice things about photography as a hobby, is that it appeals to a
wide spectrum of people. Some like mountain climbing, and some like bugs in
the garden......They are as different as the dance music I play on my
flugelhorn is from the screaming jazz that comes out of the horn of Maynard
Ferguson.....

* Douglas is quoted & my replies are inline below :
Has anyone ever sold a macro shot of a fly, a spider or a any other
insect except to a book or magazine publisher?

Ever heard of "hobbies"?

It seems to me there's a few cretins wasting an awful lot of time
snip /

Speaking of cretins:

Introducing Sarina:
OOPS:

Seems to me there's a cretin wasting an awful lot of time posting
under multiple aliases, but too stupid to remember which alias
he/she is using. I reckon I've spent less time taking macro
photos, uploading them, preparing them for web etc, than you have
spent on USENET.

How much money do you make for posting on USENET, Doug? How much
time spent reading and posting?

--
Troy Piggins
Please feel free to provide constructive criticism on any photos I post. I'm
always learning and appreciate feedback.

On Feb 17, 7:08*pm, Troy Piggins wrote:

Seems to me there's a cretin wasting an awful lot of time posting
under multiple aliases, but too stupid to remember which alias
he/she is using. *I reckon I've spent less time taking macro
photos, uploading them, preparing them for web etc, than you have
spent on USENET.

How much money do you make for posting on USENET, Doug? *How much
time spent reading and posting?

OUCH! He gotcha there, D-Mac!

What diff does it make to you how we spend our money or our time.
Taking difficult macro shots with good gear like Troy and I do is
certainly more worthwhile than throwing two plastic flowers in some
brush, snapping them with a point-and-**** and then making some long-
winded speech about your "art" or how moving a twig wouldn't be
natural, dontcha think?

And I'll bet if the truth were known my sales would be comparable to
yours.

"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
Doug Jewell wrote:

Personally, in my current financial situation, I can't
justify huge expense on photography gear, so I get by with
kit lenses and just a couple of extras that I managed to
pick up cheap.

Actually, you don't really need expensive lenses to take great macro
shots.
You can get some reversing rings for about $6 and use the lenses you
already
have. If you have a 50/1.4 or 1.8 you are already there.

Doh!!

Troy Piggins wrote:
* Douglas is quoted & my replies are inline below :
Has anyone ever sold a macro shot of a fly, a spider or a any other
insect except to a book or magazine publisher?

I haven't sold any of my photos of flies, spiders, or any other
insects. I take my photos for my own personal enjoyment,
relaxation, and learning. I wouldn't sell a photo of a
frangipani, if I ever took one, either.

It seems to me there's a few cretins wasting an awful lot of time

I'm not a cretin, and I'm not wasting time.

Just ignore him Troy, he is jealous of your work. Have you looked at
his? If not, it is CRAP.

Douglas is nothing but a ******, the 3 stooges are no longer biting so
Dog can't play the victim so he has tried to rope you in with this attack.

The minute I read 'macro of a fly' I knew he was talking about you and
it would lead to an attack.

Just ignore him and let him go and toss over Bridezilla and the Monogroom

Did I mention Dog is a ****wit, oh well Dog is a ****wit

Troy Piggins wrote:
* Douglas is quoted & my replies are inline below :
Has anyone ever sold a macro shot of a fly, a spider or a any other
insect except to a book or magazine publisher?

Ever heard of "hobbies"?

It seems to me there's a few cretins wasting an awful lot of time
snip /

Speaking of cretins:

Introducing Sarina:
OOPS:

Seems to me there's a cretin wasting an awful lot of time posting
under multiple aliases, but too stupid to remember which alias
he/she is using. I reckon I've spent less time taking macro
photos, uploading them, preparing them for web etc, than you have
spent on USENET.

How much money do you make for posting on USENET, Doug? How much
time spent reading and posting?


I nominate this as come back post of the month.

Dickless Dog must have realised he was back in the killfile of many as
Cryptopix so he has reverted back to Douglas

What a loser!!

"Douglas" wrote in message
...
Has anyone ever sold a macro shot of a fly, a spider or a any other
insect except to a book or magazine publisher?

No!

It seems to me there's a few cretins wasting an awful lot of time
taking worthless macro photos of common insects and using very
expensive gear to do it... For no purpose other than to waste even
more time and money posting the pics for group comment.

OMG, OMG, OMG you are right!

Is there a hidden agenda here somewhere or have digital cameras
produced a whole new generation of happy snappers with an over
abundance of ego and an under supply of imagination?

Thats it everyone everywhere must get rid of all their cameras and lenses
cos Dougal can't see why anyone would simply like to take photos of damn
well whatever they please. You have convinced me mate, onto Evilbay it all
goes. Thanks for your help sorting me out.