A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

[SI] Macro/Closeup



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 30th 12, 11:33 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
George Kerby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Macro/Closeup




On 5/30/12 3:52 PM, in article
, "RichA"
wrote:

On May 29, 8:21*pm, SI Committee
wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup

--
The Committee


I don't get it. Some of the shots are not close-ups in any form and
some of the close-ups and pseudo-macros have no composition that is
discernible.


And some are B-O-R-I-N-G, one in particular: the single submission...

  #22  
Old May 30th 12, 11:34 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
George Kerby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Macro/Closeup




On 5/30/12 4:19 PM, in article
, "Alan Browne"
wrote:

On 2012-05-30 16:52 , RichA wrote:

no composition that is
discernible.


http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/143651823


BINGO

  #23  
Old May 31st 12, 12:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Charles E. Hardwidge[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 72
Default [SI] Macro/Closeup

"SI Committee" wrote in message
...

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


There were some pictures among the selection I liked for what they were and
although it wasn't my favourite of that rough cut Tony did a nice frog!
Yes, really. I thought I'd just get that in first cuz of the nice guy I am.

"Cropit. Cropit. Cropit."

Sorry but this gag never grows old.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

  #24  
Old May 31st 12, 12:48 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Macro/Closeup

On 2012-05-30 15:36:12 -0700, Bruce said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-05-30 14:17:51 -0700, Bruce said:
RichA wrote:
On May 29, 8:21*pm, SI Committee
wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup

--
The Committee

I don't get it. Some of the shots are not close-ups in any form and
some of the close-ups and pseudo-macros have no composition that is
discernible.


'Twas ever thus. ;-)


Why take Rich's word for the work submitted?



Because I have seen the submissions and I agree entirely with Rich's
comments.
Once again the SI plumbs the depths of mediocrity and
incompetence. But y'all seem to enjoy it, and it never gets any
better no matter what is said, so who cares? ;-)


However all you have done is sprout blanket condemnation without one
word of constructive criticism. Unless we have all missed what it was
you have actually said that is of any worth to all of us who want to
improve our work.
We still long to see an example of how you have improved over the
years, to reach the acme of professional photography perfection you
taunt us with.

....or is it that you are still struggling to move beyond these fine
examples of your work from 1998?
http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cg...-98/d9000a.jpg
http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cg...-98/d9000b.jpg
http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cg...-98/d9000c.jpg
http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cg...-98/d9000d.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #25  
Old May 31st 12, 01:20 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Frank S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 153
Default [SI] Macro/Closeup - Some comments

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


  #26  
Old May 31st 12, 01:54 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Huuter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Macro/Closeup

On 2012-05-30 18:36 , Bruce wrote:
Savageduck wrote:


Why take Rich's word for the work submitted?



Because I have seen the submissions and I agree entirely with Rich's
comments.


Here's a Tony "Bruce" Polson professional product shot:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/all6e7aqk8zs8vt/TP%20TEAC.jpg

Then there are the choo-choo shots...

So, really, you don't have much to contribute... as usual.


  #27  
Old May 31st 12, 02:00 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Macro/Closeup

On 2012-05-30 17:54:45 -0700, Huuter said:

On 2012-05-30 18:36 , Bruce wrote:
Savageduck wrote:


Why take Rich's word for the work submitted?



Because I have seen the submissions and I agree entirely with Rich's
comments.


Here's a Tony "Bruce" Polson professional product shot:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/all6e7aqk8zs8vt/TP%20TEAC.jpg

Then there are the choo-choo shots...

So, really, you don't have much to contribute... as usual.


So "Bruce/TonyP" was correct when he uttered "'Twas ever thus." However
it seems he was referring to his work.

No wonder he doesn't want to be compared with any of us rank amateurs.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #28  
Old May 31st 12, 02:07 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Macro/Closeup

On 2012-05-30 21:00 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-05-30 17:54:45 -0700, Huuter said:

On 2012-05-30 18:36 , Bruce wrote:
Savageduck wrote:


Why take Rich's word for the work submitted?


Because I have seen the submissions and I agree entirely with Rich's
comments.


Here's a Tony "Bruce" Polson professional product shot:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/all6e7aqk8zs8vt/TP%20TEAC.jpg

Then there are the choo-choo shots...

So, really, you don't have much to contribute... as usual.


So "Bruce/TonyP" was correct when he uttered "'Twas ever thus." However
it seems he was referring to his work.

No wonder he doesn't want to be compared with any of us rank amateurs.


I seem to recall a few others beyond the choo-choos and the one above.
I just don't have the links anymore.

Maybe I should enter the one above in Polson's name in the SI database?
That would be hilarious. Esp. if he put a demand order into PBase to
have it removed!

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


  #29  
Old May 31st 12, 03:15 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Chemiker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default [SI] Macro/Closeup - Some comments

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
  #30  
Old May 31st 12, 01:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Macro/Closeup

On 2012-05-31 05:34:07 -0700, RichA said:

On May 30, 5:18*pm, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-05-30 13:52:07 -0700, RichA said:

On May 29, 8:21 pm, SI Committee
wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup


--
The Committee


I don't get it. *Some of the shots are not close-ups in any form and
some of the close-ups and pseudo-macros have no composition that is
discernible.


Aah! The rewind.

You do understand that your level of credibility took a massive dive
with your earlier "preemptive strike" post, don't you?

Next time just comment on the individual submissions, and see if you
can provide some constructive criticism.

--
Regards,

Savageduck


Apologies, I didn't think the first post posted.


Oh it did!
All you had to do was check the responses to it.

Just to remind you, here is that preemptive strike made on 05/29/2012,
quite some time before the submissions you painted with a blanket
condemnation, were available for viewing.

The rich words from Rich:
"Should probably have separated macro and close-up into two distinct
challengers, because the shots there are all over the map. Some of
them are not even real close-ups let alone macros and some of the
macros are just close-ups with no composition worth noting."


--
Regards,

Savageduck

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SI] 2 days left (Closeup/Macro) SI Committee Digital SLR Cameras 13 May 29th 12 10:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.