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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] New Mandates.
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. -- Peter |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] New Mandates.
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. -- Peter |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] New Mandates.
"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. -- Frank ess |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] New Mandates.
On 2012-05-19 13:44 , 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. I'd agree. -- "A person with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds." -Samuel Clemens. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] New Mandates.
On 2012-05-19 10:56:31 -0700, Alan Browne
said: On 2012-05-19 13:44 , 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. I'd agree. 18 inches close enough? -- Regards, Savageduck |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] New Mandates.
On 2012-05-19 15:44 , tony cooper wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2012 13:56:31 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: On 2012-05-19 13:44 , 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. I'd agree. How do you enlarge a portion of an image? You can crop down to a portion of an image, but not enlarge it. It's all about presentation. Let's use the SI's max landscape presentation as an example: 1200x800. When I take a photo for the SI I may crop out part of the frame to remove distracting stuff or to improve the composition - but the amount cut away is usually quite low. At worst it might be 25% in one or both dimensions removed (up to 50% of the surface). Then re-size for presentation at 1200x800. So, 50% (or more) of the originally viewfinder framed image remains. eg: "As I saw it" through the viewfinder. BUT: My camera is 6000 x 4000 pixels. If I directly crop a section out without re-sizing to 1200 x 800 it is the same as a 5x zoom for the presentation format. In that case I've removed 96% of the original pixels and "zoomed in" considerably for a given presentation size. A mere 4% of the original in-frame image remains "as I saw it" through the VF. As far as I'm concerned, if you have an 18/55 or 18/270 lens (as I do), you shoot as close as that lens can focus, and you crop down to a portion of that image...you're legal. I'd propose that the litmus test here is "how well will it print" before the cropped section was resized for the SI. My example above (4%) would not print very nicely at 8x5.3 inches. The guideline should perhaps be something like: before resizing for the SI, would the cropped section print to 12x8 inches and look good? (In photoshop one can "View printed size" assuming the screen pitch is entered and the print pitch is set). Nikon has a "macro" setting, but it isn't macro and I never use it. Real macro is produced by the lens used (or the lens and an extension tube) and not by a mode setting. If the "macro" is an in-camera thing, then it's not macro; if it's a zoom lens with a "macro" mode then it's not macro but very-closeup. -- "A person with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds." -Samuel Clemens. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] New Mandates.
On 2012-05-19 15:46 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-05-19 10:56:31 -0700, Alan Browne said: On 2012-05-19 13:44 , 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. I'd agree. 18 inches close enough? I think we're looking for a reasonable proportion of the image as seen through the VF. See my recent (minute ago) reply to Tony. Note that a close up of a bee and a closeup of an elephant have entirely different results where distance is concerned. -- "A person with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds." -Samuel Clemens. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] New Mandates.
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. -- Peter |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] New Mandates.
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] New Mandates.
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[SI] New Mandates! | Bowser | Digital Photography | 7 | September 24th 10 04:47 AM |
[SI] New Mandates! | PA | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | September 23rd 10 08:54 PM |
[SI] New Mandates! | LOL![_3_] | Digital Photography | 1 | September 23rd 10 02:22 PM |
New Mandates! Get 'em while they're hot! | George Kerby | Digital Photography | 0 | August 5th 10 12:44 AM |
[SI] New Mandates | Bowser | Digital Photography | 36 | February 12th 10 02:10 AM |