Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
[SI] Macro/Closeup
10 views
Skip to first unread message
SI Committee
May 29, 2012, 8:21:36 PM5/29/12
to
tony cooper
May 29, 2012, 8:32:50 PM5/29/12
to
On Tue, 29 May 2012 20:21:36 -0400, SI Committee
<si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote:
>http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
Any particular reason my three are not included?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
<si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote:
>http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
Any particular reason my three are not included?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
tony cooper
May 29, 2012, 8:36:31 PM5/29/12
to
On Tue, 29 May 2012 20:21:36 -0400, SI Committee
<si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote:
>http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
I re-sent my three, but mail log shows I sent them yesterday.
<si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote:
>http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
Charles E. Hardwidge
May 29, 2012, 9:13:17 PM5/29/12
to
"tony cooper" <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2lqas79h5nf02h1fa...@4ax.com...
> Any particular reason my three are not included?
You've been "cropped"? Oh, the irony.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
news:2lqas79h5nf02h1fa...@4ax.com...
> Any particular reason my three are not included?
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Tim Conway
May 29, 2012, 10:01:41 PM5/29/12
to
"Charles E. Hardwidge" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:jq3s79$mpp$1...@dont-email.me...
> "tony cooper" <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2lqas79h5nf02h1fa...@4ax.com...
>
>> Any particular reason my three are not included?
>
> You've been "cropped"? Oh, the irony.
>
Oh Charles, you apparently hold a grudge.
> news:2lqas79h5nf02h1fa...@4ax.com...
>
>> Any particular reason my three are not included?
>
> You've been "cropped"? Oh, the irony.
>
Savageduck
May 29, 2012, 10:17:04 PM5/29/12
to
On 2012-05-29 17:21:36 -0700, SI Committee
<si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> 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 Petre:
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
<si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> 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 Petre:
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
Charles E. Hardwidge
May 29, 2012, 10:45:00 PM5/29/12
to
"Tim Conway" <tconw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jq3v2j$4mh$1...@dont-email.me...
I'm overplaying things to make it obvious I'm messing around as a reaction
to pooper Cooper carrying a grudge after I rejected his advances the other
year. That's my version and I'm sticking to it. So there. Nyeah.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
news:jq3v2j$4mh$1...@dont-email.me...
to pooper Cooper carrying a grudge after I rejected his advances the other
year. That's my version and I'm sticking to it. So there. Nyeah.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
tony cooper
May 29, 2012, 11:11:41 PM5/29/12
to
On Tue, 29 May 2012 19:17:04 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>BTW Tony C, were you sitting this one out? If yours are late, I will
>crucify you later.
I submitted on time with fresh shots.
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>BTW Tony C, were you sitting this one out? If yours are late, I will
>crucify you later.
Savageduck
May 29, 2012, 11:32:26 PM5/29/12
to
On 2012-05-29 20:11:41 -0700, tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> said:
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 19:17:04 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> BTW Tony C, were you sitting this one out? If yours are late, I will
>> crucify you later.
>
> I submitted on time with fresh shots.
OK! I'll have my say once the Browne Canadian puts them up.
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 19:17:04 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> BTW Tony C, were you sitting this one out? If yours are late, I will
>> crucify you later.
>
> I submitted on time with fresh shots.
I have dragged myself out of my lethargy to start the comments ball
rolling, I am sure there are others with their unique take on things,
and it would be nice not to be flying solo on this.
I await your offerings. ;-)
I did my best to omit the one word condemnations, and gleeful
adorations, such as "crap!" & "Wow!"
I felt that given some of the recent remarks regarding comments, that
every submission deserves some appreciation, good or bad, regardless of
whether the individual critics believe they are worthy of comment or
not. Everybody took the trouble to submit an entry, so they are
deserving of comment, not the "I only comment on images I feel like
commenting on" deal.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Andrew Reilly
May 30, 2012, 8:15:08 AM5/30/12
to
On Tue, 29 May 2012 19:17:04 -0700, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-05-29 17:21:36 -0700, SI Committee
> <si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> said:
>
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>
> OK!
Indeed! Many photos here, so I'm afraid that my comments will probably
> On 2012-05-29 17:21:36 -0700, SI Committee
> <si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> said:
>
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>
> OK!
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 Petre:
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
PeterN
May 30, 2012, 8:59:09 AM5/30/12
to
On 5/29/2012 8:21 PM, SI Committee wrote:
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>
I sent three. Should I resend the missing image?
--
Peter
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>
I sent three. Should I resend the missing image?
--
Peter
PeterN
May 30, 2012, 9:22:12 AM5/30/12
to
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
<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.
>
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
Chemiker
May 30, 2012, 12:04:22 PM5/30/12
to
On Tue, 29 May 2012 19:17:04 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2012-05-29 17:21:36 -0700, SI Committee
><si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> said:
>
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>
>On 2012-05-29 17:21:36 -0700, SI Committee
><si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> 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:
>Macro-01:
>That is a beauty. Great detail shown. I like it.
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".
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 image>object), 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.
Bowser
May 30, 2012, 1:49:49 PM5/30/12
to
>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
>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.
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.
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.
RichA
May 30, 2012, 4:52:07 PM5/30/12
to
On May 29, 8:21 pm, SI Committee <si.modera...@squigglethis-yahoo.com>
wrote:
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.
wrote:
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.
Alan Browne
May 30, 2012, 4:59:47 PM5/30/12
to
On 2012-05-29 20:32 , tony cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 20:21:36 -0400, SI Committee
> <si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>
> Any particular reason my three are not included?
I received yours at 20:35 last night at which time I was far far away
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 20:21:36 -0400, SI Committee
> <si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>
> Any particular reason my three are not included?
from the computer (in mind anyway). They'll be posted forthwith.
--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.
Alan Browne
May 30, 2012, 5:00:37 PM5/30/12
to
On 2012-05-29 20:36 , tony cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 20:21:36 -0400, SI Committee
> <si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>
> I re-sent my three, but mail log shows I sent them yesterday.
They were definitely not received. I did receive your "re-send".
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 20:21:36 -0400, SI Committee
> <si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>
> I re-sent my three, but mail log shows I sent them yesterday.
Bruce
May 30, 2012, 5:17:51 PM5/30/12
to
Savageduck
May 30, 2012, 5:18:40 PM5/30/12
to
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
Alan Browne
May 30, 2012, 5:19:48 PM5/30/12
to
On 2012-05-30 16:52 , RichA wrote:
> no composition that is
> discernible.
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/143651823
> no composition that is
> discernible.
Savageduck
May 30, 2012, 5:23:42 PM5/30/12
to
On 2012-05-30 14:19:48 -0700, Alan Browne
incredible prescience wave, with regard to composition pass over him.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
> On 2012-05-30 16:52 , RichA wrote:
>
>> no composition that is
>> discernible.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/143651823
So that was the one he was talking about. No wonder he had that
> On 2012-05-30 16:52 , RichA wrote:
>
>> no composition that is
>> discernible.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/143651823
incredible prescience wave, with regard to composition pass over him.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Alan Browne
May 30, 2012, 5:26:21 PM5/30/12
to
Late arrivals are up.
Savageduck
May 30, 2012, 5:38:22 PM5/30/12
to
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 19:17:04 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> BTW Tony C, were you sitting this one out? If yours are late, I will
>> crucify you later.
>
> I submitted on time with fresh shots.
OK!
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> BTW Tony C, were you sitting this one out? If yours are late, I will
>> crucify you later.
>
> I submitted on time with fresh shots.
Here is my take on your submissions, and PeterN's third shot.
Tony Cooper:
MACRO_Available:
Good closeup of the displaying lizard, with great color on that macho flag.
MACRO_JAPF:
Nice! Great capture of the skin patterning.
MACRO_Rose:
Very nice. One of the better flower submissions. The detail is good
with the subdued saturation. I like it.
Peter Newman:
Macro-Dahlia145:
This works on the abstract level, the soft brush stroke petals offset
by the gold. Nice.
My part in this SI is done. Everybody else is now welcome to comment on
my comments, or make their own comments on the entire Mandate. Just try
not to use Rich's example.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Alan Browne
May 30, 2012, 5:39:20 PM5/30/12
to
your "old" stuff in. Just hope it isn't as out of focus, underexposed
and hopelessly grainy as past examples.
Savageduck
May 30, 2012, 5:47:33 PM5/30/12
to
preemptive condemnation he posted long before the images were posted.
Take a look at the shots yourself, and provide this community of
photographers the benefit of your constructive criticism. Your words of
experience along with a few examples of what we should be striving for
would be greatly appreciated.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
George Kerby
May 30, 2012, 6:33:03 PM5/30/12
to
On 5/30/12 3:52 PM, in article
7bec3ee8-c335-45aa...@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com, "RichA"
George Kerby
May 30, 2012, 6:34:55 PM5/30/12
to
On 5/30/12 4:19 PM, in article
IN2dndMsJbNpE1vS...@giganews.com, "Alan Browne"
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2012-05-30 16:52 , RichA wrote:
>
>> no composition that is
>> discernible.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/143651823
>
<BINGO>
> On 2012-05-30 16:52 , RichA wrote:
>
>> no composition that is
>> discernible.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/143651823
>
Bruce
May 30, 2012, 6:36:12 PM5/30/12
to
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2012-05-30 14:17:51 -0700, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> said:
>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 29, 8:21�pm, SI Committee <si.modera...@squigglethis-yahoo.com>
>>> 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
>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 29, 8:21�pm, SI Committee <si.modera...@squigglethis-yahoo.com>
>>> 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?
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? ;-)
Charles E. Hardwidge
May 30, 2012, 7:14:28 PM5/30/12
to
"SI Committee" <si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cLWdnX9kt5aN9VjS...@giganews.com...
> 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
news:cLWdnX9kt5aN9VjS...@giganews.com...
> 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
Savageduck
May 30, 2012, 7:48:18 PM5/30/12
to
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.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000a.jpg >
< http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000b.jpg >
< http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000c.jpg >
< http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000d.jpg >
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Frank S
May 30, 2012, 8:20:41 PM5/30/12
to
On 2012-05-29 17:21:36 -0700, SI Committee
<si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> said:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
> OK!
[...]
<si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> 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
> 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.
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.
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.
>
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
Huuter
May 30, 2012, 8:54:45 PM5/30/12
to
On 2012-05-30 18:36 , Bruce wrote:
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> 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:
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> Why take Rich's word for the work submitted?
>
>
> Because I have seen the submissions and I agree entirely with Rich's
> comments.
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.
Savageduck
May 30, 2012, 9:00:53 PM5/30/12
to
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
Alan Browne
May 30, 2012, 9:07:23 PM5/30/12
to
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!
Chemiker
May 30, 2012, 10:15:19 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 11:04:22 -0500, Chemiker
<prussia...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 May 2012 19:17:04 -0700, Savageduck
><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2012-05-29 17:21:36 -0700, SI Committee
>><si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> 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
<prussia...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 May 2012 19:17:04 -0700, Savageduck
><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2012-05-29 17:21:36 -0700, SI Committee
>><si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> 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.
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
Annika1980
May 31, 2012, 1:43:15 AM5/31/12
to
On May 29, 8:32 pm, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 20:21:36 -0400, SI Committee
>
> <si.modera...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Yeah, and why didn't you post my 3 shots? Could it be that I forgot
to send them in?
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 20:21:36 -0400, SI Committee
>
> <si.modera...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>
> Any particular reason my three are not included?
>
> --
>
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Yeah, and why didn't you post my 3 shots? Could it be that I forgot
to send them in?
Bruce
May 31, 2012, 6:15:19 AM5/31/12
to
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2012-05-30 15:36:12 -0700, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-30 14:17:51 -0700, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> said:
>>>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On May 29, 8:21 pm, SI Committee <si.modera...@squigglethis-yahoo.com>
>>>>> 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.
They are all "nice" shots. You are all doing "so well". Keep up the
>On 2012-05-30 15:36:12 -0700, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-30 14:17:51 -0700, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> said:
>>>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On May 29, 8:21 pm, SI Committee <si.modera...@squigglethis-yahoo.com>
>>>>> 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.
"good" work ...
And keep taking the tablets so the Alzheimers (which seems to be a
qualifying requirement for the SI) won't make you *too* cross. ;-)
Bruce
May 31, 2012, 6:22:42 AM5/31/12
to
from somewhere exotic but still cannot produce a decent shot for the
SI after nine years of not trying?
To learn absolutely nothing about photography in NINE YEARS is quite a
non-achievement.
A non-award winner for a lifetime of non-achievement and failure.
RichA
May 31, 2012, 8:34:07 AM5/31/12
to
On May 30, 5:18 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
Apologies, I didn't think the first post posted.
RichA
May 31, 2012, 8:35:59 AM5/31/12
to
On May 30, 5:19 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
wrote:
Again, for whatever reason, I didn't see it posted.
wrote:
Savageduck
May 31, 2012, 8:47:42 AM5/31/12
to
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
Savageduck
May 31, 2012, 8:55:20 AM5/31/12
to
...too cross?
Why? You seem to be the individual in these forums who has forgotten he
is a pompous ass with a fragile ego.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
RichA
May 31, 2012, 10:25:49 AM5/31/12
to
On May 29, 8:21 pm, SI Committee <si.modera...@squigglethis-yahoo.com>
wrote:
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>
> --
> The Committee
Tim 1: Looks like a Dpreview studio shot.
wrote:
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>
> --
> The Committee
Tim 2: Focus is a the back of the scene.
Tim 3: Very washed-out looking.
Savage 1: Ok, should have dulled down the bright flash, produced a
bright highlight. Driver needs to take q-tip to the left-over polish
around the emblem.
Savage 2: Nice, smooth-looking, somewhat abstract.
Savage 3: Ok, I detect the slightest hint of motion-blur.
Bowser 1: I like it. It’s almost orthographic in nature.
Bowser 2; Interesting, like a lake taken from high altitude.
Bowser 3: Lighting a bit harsh, but it does convey the “metalicity”
of the object. I think I’d have cropped out the stand a bit.
Sid 1: Not bad. Reasonable 3D representation. I might have made the
top and bottom defocused hole areas more symmetrical to one another,
the top one is partially cut-off.
Sid 2: Pretty good, but conventional. The interesting part are the
stamens. I’d have closed in a bit on them, if the lens permitted.
Sid 3: Conventional, but nice. Petals have a bluish tinge, likely
from the sky.
FrankEss 1: I don’t know about this one. It’s interesting to have
defocused the bee and focused the ant. Image shows typical
shortcomings of P&S’s, harsh contrast. It’s ok.
FrankEss 2: Only problem with the shot is that the dimmer areas
should have been made dimmer still. Raised shadows from a P&S look
gritty and blotchy and ugly.
FrankEss 3: Eh. I’d have taken the dark areas full-black. There are
specs there.
DanPetre1: I like it, despite the PS’d speed emphasis. Maybe cut a
strip off the sky.
Bobflint 1: That is a neat shot! Like a race, or a family outing!
Bobflint 2: Kind of conventional.
Bobflint 3: Pretty good. Whites are nicely separated. Always liked
the D90’s image quality.
AndrewReilly 1: It’s a pretty good shot, but I’d have used f16 to
keep the trunk more in-focus.
AndrewReilly 2: Good shot. Needs more colour.
AndrewReilly 3: Again, pretty decent, minor red edge on the wire is a
bit distracting. Might want to clone out the residual dust spots on
the film.
MacroMG: Nice-looking flower shot, good colour, crop out the
distraction at the top.
MGCraneflower: Ok shot, a shallow DOF would have helped here, but not
possible with a P&S.
MG ladybugs: Nice enough shot, but needs a tad more colour and
contrast. An interesting approach might have been a side shot (they
are curving around the trunk of the tree).
Chemiker old1: Good shot of a black butterfly. A little faded
looking. Cut off a bit of the tail.
Chemiker 2: Not bad. Elimination of the background is ok, though I
might have used a narrow light source hitting the gems.
MarthaCoe 1: Ok close-up, except for the blurred, distracting stem in
the foreground.
MarthaCoe 2: A nice, symmetric close-up. The unfurled inner petals
make it a bit more interesting than the usual.
MarthaCoe 3: I like the shot, but some repositioning could have
avoided the blurred object on the bottom left.
PeterNewmanDahlia: Good colour, pizzazz, but it’s not quite sharp.
PeterNewmanOrchid: I like this shot. Fanatics might have used a lens
brush to remove the tiny black specs from the top of the flower, but
otherwise, it’s impressive.
PeterNewmanDahlia145: Image is too small here, increasing size would
increase perception of depth.
AlanBrown3: Honestly? Boring!!!
AlanBrown1: Pretty good spider shot, a real macro for a change. Be
nice if the contrast had been controllable, but sometimes it’s hard to
control lighting in such a situation. F16 with a ring flash would be
a good way to get this kind of thing.
AlanBrown2: This is an interesting shot. Good texture, isolated
focus works and I wonder what made the scratch marks on the fungus??!
TonyCooperI’mavailable: Probably going for a high-key look? It’s
almost self-luminous, I’d have toned down the edginess.
TonyCooperJustaprettyface: Very good shot of the creature.
TonyCooperRoseinbloom: Nice-looking shot, interesting texturing
technique.
Savageduck
May 31, 2012, 11:17:34 AM5/31/12
to
On 2012-05-31 07:25:49 -0700, RichA <rande...@gmail.com> said:
> On May 29, 8:21 pm, SI Committee <si.modera...@squigglethis-yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>>
>> --
>> The Committee
Now this is a pleasant surprise.
> On May 29, 8:21 pm, SI Committee <si.modera...@squigglethis-yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>>
>> --
>> The Committee
> Savage 1: Ok, should have dulled down the bright flash, produced a
> bright highlight. Driver needs to take q-tip to the left-over polish
> around the emblem.
...and I agree, the car owner needed to prep his car better, and as I
said, I wasn't going to do it for him.
> Savage 2: Nice, smooth-looking, somewhat abstract.
> Savage 3: Ok, I detect the slightest hint of motion-blur.
and if it was indeed motion blur the entire emblem should be effected,
and it is not.
Rich,
Thank you for taking the trouble to make amends by providing some
meaningful comments. It takes a bit of effort and we all appreciate it
whenever that is done. Please in future, look before you leap, and make
comments and constructive criticism as you have done now.
Good work.
I look forward to your shots this weekend for "Doors" and the fast
approaching "Food".
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Bowser
May 31, 2012, 1:35:59 PM5/31/12
to
On 30 May 2012 12:15:08 GMT, Andrew Reilly
<areil...@bigpond.net.au> 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.
<areil...@bigpond.net.au> 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.
sid
May 31, 2012, 3:08:24 PM5/31/12
to
Firstly thanks to all the people that have taken the time to comment on each
image. All very helpful, so for what it's worth here's mine
Tim Conway
1. nice detail, bad memories :-###..
2. out of focus
3. looks very flat, low contrast or something
Savageduck
1.second, because it's not the worst
2 third, as a record shot it's trying to be too artsy
3 first, nice detail shows of the piece as it should, all three are
technically good as you'd expect.
RichA
1. lacking something, a point of interest maybe
Bowser
1. good detail, like the b&w
2. ditto
3. ditto
sid
1. yes it is disc brakes, twin front discs on a Triumph Sprint 955i
2. OK the focus should be on one thing or the other, I'll blur the petals a
bit and see. Apple blossom, btw.
3. It's a daisy about 12-14mm across. I like the contrast between the petals
and the grass
Frank Ess
1. whatever the intention the out of focus bee ruins it for me
2. I don't know what it is but it's close and sharp with good detail
3 I like the lighting and the idea but position in the frame should be
higher
Dan Petre
1. I like it, has a feeling of movement to it
Bob Flint.
1. Not really close enough for me
2. this one is and is nice and detailed to go with it
3. again not really close enough for me, although technically good
Andrew Reilly
1. I can see you're close to the tree
2. I like this one, a bit closer to the tendril would have been better
3. no2 is the better one, as much as anything the background is distracting
MG
1. Close and sharp, I'd crop out the sky at the top and probably the burnt
out petals bottom left
2. never seen one of those before, not an attractive foto to my eye, though
it does an admirable job of showing what a crane flower looks like
3. like richAs photo it's a bit flat although an interesting subject
Chemiker
1. nice enough, better with both wings out flat
2. surreal
Martha Coe
1. not close enough or sharp enough
2. close enough but not sharp enough
3. best of the three, maybe tone tone the bright leaves bottom left
peter newman
1. bright bold and close. looks good, would be better without the orange
frame
2. very good. I've tried with one of them and did not succeed as you have
3. again very good, look no frame :)
Alan Browne
1. it's close
2. nice and sharp where the focus is, good backgroud
3. very good
Tony Cooper
1. good job, lizard really stands out
2. excellent focus, I just like it a bit more central
3. nice, good separation from background
All of which off course is just my opinion
--
sid
RLU 300284
2010.2
image. All very helpful, so for what it's worth here's mine
Tim Conway
1. nice detail, bad memories :-###..
2. out of focus
3. looks very flat, low contrast or something
Savageduck
1.second, because it's not the worst
2 third, as a record shot it's trying to be too artsy
3 first, nice detail shows of the piece as it should, all three are
technically good as you'd expect.
RichA
1. lacking something, a point of interest maybe
Bowser
1. good detail, like the b&w
2. ditto
3. ditto
sid
1. yes it is disc brakes, twin front discs on a Triumph Sprint 955i
2. OK the focus should be on one thing or the other, I'll blur the petals a
bit and see. Apple blossom, btw.
3. It's a daisy about 12-14mm across. I like the contrast between the petals
and the grass
Frank Ess
1. whatever the intention the out of focus bee ruins it for me
2. I don't know what it is but it's close and sharp with good detail
3 I like the lighting and the idea but position in the frame should be
higher
Dan Petre
1. I like it, has a feeling of movement to it
Bob Flint.
1. Not really close enough for me
2. this one is and is nice and detailed to go with it
3. again not really close enough for me, although technically good
Andrew Reilly
1. I can see you're close to the tree
2. I like this one, a bit closer to the tendril would have been better
3. no2 is the better one, as much as anything the background is distracting
MG
1. Close and sharp, I'd crop out the sky at the top and probably the burnt
out petals bottom left
2. never seen one of those before, not an attractive foto to my eye, though
it does an admirable job of showing what a crane flower looks like
3. like richAs photo it's a bit flat although an interesting subject
Chemiker
1. nice enough, better with both wings out flat
2. surreal
Martha Coe
1. not close enough or sharp enough
2. close enough but not sharp enough
3. best of the three, maybe tone tone the bright leaves bottom left
peter newman
1. bright bold and close. looks good, would be better without the orange
frame
2. very good. I've tried with one of them and did not succeed as you have
3. again very good, look no frame :)
Alan Browne
1. it's close
2. nice and sharp where the focus is, good backgroud
3. very good
Tony Cooper
1. good job, lizard really stands out
2. excellent focus, I just like it a bit more central
3. nice, good separation from background
All of which off course is just my opinion
--
sid
RLU 300284
2010.2
Alan Browne
May 31, 2012, 5:04:10 PM5/31/12
to
alan1browne
May 31, 2012, 5:07:40 PM5/31/12
to
predictably vindictive.
Ever since I called out Polson to "Walk the walk" and show his implied
photographic prowess, he has been on my ass.
So be it - good for a wry laugh if little else.
Tim Conway
May 31, 2012, 5:30:34 PM5/31/12
to
"alan1browne" <Jerry...@theremail.net> wrote in message
news:jq8mit$mbi$1...@dont-email.me...
my shots are out of focus or washed out---my fault poor camera - technique
etc. But what is it that drives him nuts about the SI, but yet doesn't
contribute?!
Alan Browne
May 31, 2012, 5:37:35 PM5/31/12
to
On 2012-05-31 17:30 , Tim Conway wrote:
> Wow, what is it with him? Is he jealous or something?
Insanely so.
> Wow, what is it with him? Is he jealous or something?
Savageduck
May 31, 2012, 6:00:59 PM5/31/12
to
these photo groups. He down plays his role in sales at the "camera
shop" establishment where he "works", saying he deals with used
equipment in one breath, but has all the knowledge of an owner, or
store manager when it comes to discussion via Usenet. I suspect that is
to establish his "legend" as the gallant knight errant photographer of
the usenet, who is never to be challenged. If challenged, he will
pierce the offender with his lance of pompous scorn.
Whatever happens he has firmly lodged himself into a mythology of
expertise from which he cannot gracefully extricate himself. It has a
"Walter Mittyish" touch to it.
The behavior is an indication of deep insecurity and a lack of true
self confidence.
I often wonder if "Bruce/TonyP" has a genetic/psychological connection
with the long absent "DMac" and his multiple persona.
So much claimed, so little proven.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
tony cooper
May 31, 2012, 6:41:24 PM5/31/12
to
>http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
Sometimes I comment on all, and sometimes just on a few. The latter,
this time.
Savageduck: An interesting and well-done series of themed shots, but
I would have picked one and found two other subjects for variety. The
Dodge emblem is neat; I wonder what year that was used.
Bowser: The dandelion is in exquisite focus (and all shots in this
month's submissions are not) and brings back memories of blowing on
those things and scattering the seeds. Black and white works here. I
might have cloned or burned the white bud to the lower left.
Excellent lighting on the helmet.
Sid: I would have cropped the pink flower down to just a little more
than the pistils and the petals to the left for an off-center image
that omits the too-soft petals on the right.
The white flower is great on the left side but not so great on the
right side. Again, a little creative cropping could have made a
stronger image. You don't need to show an entire flower.
Frank Ess: The close-up of the sunglasses image is totally without
interest and fascinating at the same time. It's the type of thing
that no one else would photograph, but really does work as an exercise
in close-ups. Points awarded for even thinking of it.
Bob Flint: The snail race is a quite interesting shot with all
contenders in sharp focus. If you can train snails to race, you
should be able to train them to race on a less distracting track.
MG: The Crane Flower is composed nicely. We call those "Bird of
Paradise" plants down here.
The Ladybirds (Ladybugs, down here) are fascinating. I've never seen
any with that pattern. It wasn't until I looked at the title that I
had any idea what you photographed.
Chemiker: The black butterfly is good, but that glass jar should have
been removed in post. It's the kind of element in a photo that makes
you wonder "What is that?" and distracts from the real subject.
Peter Newman: I like that Dahlia, but the border is too much. With
that much color in the subject, a thin red border would work better.
Overload. Nice all-around lighting, by the way.
Dahlia #2 could be interesting, but the image is too small. Nice
detail in the petals.
Alan Browne: The spider's good, and they are harder to shoot than
some think. Hard to get them isolated from the background as was done
here. Must have been in a dark corner somewhere to force you to
1/100th at f/8 and 800 ISO.
Tony Cooper: The anole shot was the only anole I could find blowing
out the throat sac, and he had to be perching on concrete pond
fountain that didn't provide a good background color. The tree frog
refused to pose, so I caught as much as I could.
In Lightroom, my keyword "Flowers" has three entries. Photographing
flowers is just not my thing, but I rather liked this one. Now I have
four images for the keyword.
Good to see so many entries and names.
Sometimes I comment on all, and sometimes just on a few. The latter,
this time.
Savageduck: An interesting and well-done series of themed shots, but
I would have picked one and found two other subjects for variety. The
Dodge emblem is neat; I wonder what year that was used.
Bowser: The dandelion is in exquisite focus (and all shots in this
month's submissions are not) and brings back memories of blowing on
those things and scattering the seeds. Black and white works here. I
might have cloned or burned the white bud to the lower left.
Excellent lighting on the helmet.
Sid: I would have cropped the pink flower down to just a little more
than the pistils and the petals to the left for an off-center image
that omits the too-soft petals on the right.
The white flower is great on the left side but not so great on the
right side. Again, a little creative cropping could have made a
stronger image. You don't need to show an entire flower.
Frank Ess: The close-up of the sunglasses image is totally without
interest and fascinating at the same time. It's the type of thing
that no one else would photograph, but really does work as an exercise
in close-ups. Points awarded for even thinking of it.
Bob Flint: The snail race is a quite interesting shot with all
contenders in sharp focus. If you can train snails to race, you
should be able to train them to race on a less distracting track.
MG: The Crane Flower is composed nicely. We call those "Bird of
Paradise" plants down here.
The Ladybirds (Ladybugs, down here) are fascinating. I've never seen
any with that pattern. It wasn't until I looked at the title that I
had any idea what you photographed.
Chemiker: The black butterfly is good, but that glass jar should have
been removed in post. It's the kind of element in a photo that makes
you wonder "What is that?" and distracts from the real subject.
Peter Newman: I like that Dahlia, but the border is too much. With
that much color in the subject, a thin red border would work better.
Overload. Nice all-around lighting, by the way.
Dahlia #2 could be interesting, but the image is too small. Nice
detail in the petals.
Alan Browne: The spider's good, and they are harder to shoot than
some think. Hard to get them isolated from the background as was done
here. Must have been in a dark corner somewhere to force you to
1/100th at f/8 and 800 ISO.
Tony Cooper: The anole shot was the only anole I could find blowing
out the throat sac, and he had to be perching on concrete pond
fountain that didn't provide a good background color. The tree frog
refused to pose, so I caught as much as I could.
In Lightroom, my keyword "Flowers" has three entries. Photographing
flowers is just not my thing, but I rather liked this one. Now I have
four images for the keyword.
Good to see so many entries and names.
tony cooper
May 31, 2012, 6:42:41 PM5/31/12
to
the SI submissions.
PeterN
May 31, 2012, 7:09:39 PM5/31/12
to
>> On 2012-05-30 14:17:51 -0700, Bruce<docne...@gmail.com> said:
>>> RichA<rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> RichA<rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 29, 8:21 pm, SI Committee<si.modera...@squigglethis-yahoo.com>
>>>> 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. ;-)
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why take Rich's word for the work submitted?
>
>
> Because I have seen the submissions and I agree entirely with Rich's
>> 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? ;-)
>
Why do I suspect that you saw the same images as Rich saw, at the time
> incompetence. But y'all seem to enjoy it, and it never gets any
> better no matter what is said, so who cares? ;-)
>
of his posting/
--
Peter
Alan Browne
May 31, 2012, 7:32:04 PM5/31/12
to
I don't really care about the little shit and I shouldn't lower myself
to his level.
Alan Browne
May 31, 2012, 7:42:04 PM5/31/12
to
Note a few more additions - well worth the look.
PeterN
May 31, 2012, 7:44:56 PM5/31/12
to
--
Peter
Savageduck
May 31, 2012, 7:48:07 PM5/31/12
to
On 2012-05-31 15:41:24 -0700, tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> said:
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>
> Sometimes I comment on all, and sometimes just on a few. The latter,
> this time.
>
> Savageduck: An interesting and well-done series of themed shots, but
> I would have picked one and found two other subjects for variety. The
> Dodge emblem is neat; I wonder what year that was used.
It is a 1925 Dodge Bros. Ambulance, which resides in San Luis Obispo,
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>
> Sometimes I comment on all, and sometimes just on a few. The latter,
> this time.
>
> Savageduck: An interesting and well-done series of themed shots, but
> I would have picked one and found two other subjects for variety. The
> Dodge emblem is neat; I wonder what year that was used.
and is a regular at West Coast car Shows. Chrysler bought out the Dodge
Bros. in 1928.
I have shot it on several different occasions. This was back in 2010:
< http://db.tt/7jjrpJJj >
>
> Good to see so many entries and names.
I am looking forward to "Doors" coming close on the heels of this one.
Perhaps we can ride this, ...er, wave of enthusiasm. ;-)
--
Regards,
Savageduck
PeterN
May 31, 2012, 7:50:16 PM5/31/12
to
worked in a department that I had friends in, he failed to provide
additional details and quickly stated he would not respond to my postings.
--
Peter
Savageduck
May 31, 2012, 8:03:39 PM5/31/12
to
On 2012-05-31 16:42:04 -0700, Alan Browne
As usual he provides a level of work (with good tools) many of us would
like to attain.
Macro-1:
Superb blue contrasted against the black field. Very good.
Macro-2:
An ant trapped in dreamy red. Another very good abstract vision.
Macro-3:
...and some really nasty looking ants at work. The detail on the ants
is very good. Was this a baited field?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
> On 2012-05-29 20:21 , SI Committee wrote:
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>>
>
> Note a few more additions - well worth the look.
The all too welcome return of Bret!!
> On 2012-05-29 20:21 , SI Committee wrote:
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>>
>
> Note a few more additions - well worth the look.
As usual he provides a level of work (with good tools) many of us would
like to attain.
Macro-1:
Superb blue contrasted against the black field. Very good.
Macro-2:
An ant trapped in dreamy red. Another very good abstract vision.
Macro-3:
...and some really nasty looking ants at work. The detail on the ants
is very good. Was this a baited field?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
tony cooper
May 31, 2012, 8:17:07 PM5/31/12
to
On Thu, 31 May 2012 19:42:04 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>On 2012-05-29 20:21 , SI Committee wrote:
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>>
>
>Note a few more additions - well worth the look.
Bret Douglas's stuff? I've always thought that kid has potential. If
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>On 2012-05-29 20:21 , SI Committee wrote:
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>>
>
>Note a few more additions - well worth the look.
he ever buys some decent gear, and gets out and takes a few
photographs, he might come up with something worth a second look.
Bo...@somewhere.com
May 31, 2012, 8:30:26 PM5/31/12
to
On Thu, 31 May 2012 18:41:24 -0400, tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>
>Sometimes I comment on all, and sometimes just on a few. The latter,
>this time.
>
>
shots. I like to see the environment of the creatures in the photos. It IS a
bit busy though... BTW all that liquid is snail slime.... ehhhhhwwwww!
wrote:
>>http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>
>Sometimes I comment on all, and sometimes just on a few. The latter,
>this time.
>
>
>Bob Flint: The snail race is a quite interesting shot with all
>contenders in sharp focus. If you can train snails to race, you
>should be able to train them to race on a less distracting track.
>
I picked that background on purpose as I am a firm believer in natural nature
>contenders in sharp focus. If you can train snails to race, you
>should be able to train them to race on a less distracting track.
>
shots. I like to see the environment of the creatures in the photos. It IS a
bit busy though... BTW all that liquid is snail slime.... ehhhhhwwwww!
MG
Jun 1, 2012, 4:23:41 AM6/1/12
to
"SI Committee" <si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cLWdnX9kt5aN9VjS...@giganews.com...
work. But I would like to thank everyone for comments. I enjoy reading them.
My feeling is that there is room for improvement in many of the photos and
that the comments were very helpful in achieving this.
My favourite is Frank_Ess_2 (the sunglasses). I spent more time looking at
this one than any other photo.
Thanks to Peter Newman for the flower photos. I thought OK, so this is how
flower photos should be done.
Special thanks to RichA for the entertainment.
--
MG
Noons
Jun 1, 2012, 8:13:20 AM6/1/12
to
tony cooper wrote,on my timestamp of 1/06/2012 10:17 AM:
> Bret Douglas's stuff? I've always thought that kid has potential. If
> he ever buys some decent gear, and gets out and takes a few
> photographs, he might come up with something worth a second look.
>
>
:-)
> Bret Douglas's stuff? I've always thought that kid has potential. If
> he ever buys some decent gear, and gets out and takes a few
> photographs, he might come up with something worth a second look.
>
>
Actually, three of the most interesting shots in there were taken with a p&s
camera... But Bret's stuff is also nice, particularly the blue flower thingie.
Chemiker
Jun 1, 2012, 10:02:29 AM6/1/12
to
On Thu, 31 May 2012 20:08:24 +0100, sid
<sids...@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>SI Committee wrote:
>
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>>
>
>Firstly thanks to all the people that have taken the time to comment on each
>image. All very helpful, so for what it's worth here's mine
>
<sids...@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>SI Committee wrote:
>
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>>
>
>Firstly thanks to all the people that have taken the time to comment on each
>image. All very helpful, so for what it's worth here's mine
>
>Chemiker
>1. nice enough, better with both wings out flat
>2. surreal
Thank you for the "surreal" comment. That's exactly what I was
>1. nice enough, better with both wings out flat
>2. surreal
striving for.......
Alex
PeterN
Jun 1, 2012, 3:12:54 PM6/1/12
to
On 6/1/2012 4:23 AM, MG wrote:
> "SI Committee"<si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cLWdnX9kt5aN9VjS...@giganews.com...
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>>
>> --
>> The Committee
>
> I am new to Shoot Ins, so I don't feel competent to comment on other peoples
> work. But I would like to thank everyone for comments. I enjoy reading them.
> My feeling is that there is room for improvement in many of the photos and
> that the comments were very helpful in achieving this.
There is no reason why you are indeed competent to comment. You know
> "SI Committee"<si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cLWdnX9kt5aN9VjS...@giganews.com...
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>>
>> --
>> The Committee
>
> I am new to Shoot Ins, so I don't feel competent to comment on other peoples
> work. But I would like to thank everyone for comments. I enjoy reading them.
> My feeling is that there is room for improvement in many of the photos and
> that the comments were very helpful in achieving this.
what you like and what you don't. If you don't like an image, simply say
why, in a constructive manner. There are times when I don't comment on
an image.
1. someone else has already stated my opinion; and
2. I really don't like the image, and cannot find constructive words
that may help the maker.
>
> My favourite is Frank_Ess_2 (the sunglasses). I spent more time looking at
> this one than any other photo.
>
> Thanks to Peter Newman for the flower photos. I thought OK, so this is how
> flower photos should be done.
>
flower images. I tend to look for an abstract pattern. There are
hundreds of ways of shooting flowers, many of which which are much
better then my style. Since I am not shooting for agronomy purposes, I
sometimes take liberties with color shifting, shape adjustments, HDR,
and/or edge enhancement. With the images I submitted in the SI, I did
some color and edge enhancement on the first dahlia. the others I only
did some sharpening on the lightness channel.
--
Peter
Alan Browne
Jun 1, 2012, 5:07:21 PM6/1/12
to
On 2012-06-01 04:23 , MG wrote:
> "SI Committee" <si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cLWdnX9kt5aN9VjS...@giganews.com...
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>>
>> --
>> The Committee
>
> I am new to Shoot Ins, so I don't feel competent to comment on other peoples
> work.
Not at all. Say what you feel/think about the images.
> "SI Committee" <si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cLWdnX9kt5aN9VjS...@giganews.com...
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>>
>> --
>> The Committee
>
> I am new to Shoot Ins, so I don't feel competent to comment on other peoples
> work.
> But I would like to thank everyone for comments. I enjoy reading them.
> My feeling is that there is room for improvement in many of the photos and
> that the comments were very helpful in achieving this.
>
> My favourite is Frank_Ess_2 (the sunglasses). I spent more time looking at
> this one than any other photo.
Charles E. Hardwidge
Jun 1, 2012, 6:09:17 PM6/1/12
to
"tony cooper" <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0tsfs7p55srehkunm...@4ax.com...
> Just for you, I included some cropping comments in my comments about
> the SI submissions.
Oh, Tony! You're a sweetie.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
news:0tsfs7p55srehkunm...@4ax.com...
> Just for you, I included some cropping comments in my comments about
> the SI submissions.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Alan Browne
Jun 2, 2012, 3:02:02 PM6/2/12
to
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.
> 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.
Alan Browne
Jun 2, 2012, 3:06:50 PM6/2/12
to
On 2012-05-31 10:25 , RichA wrote:
> AlanBrown3: Honestly? Boring!!!
Deadline was close.
> AlanBrown1: Pretty good spider shot, a real macro for a change. Be
> nice if the contrast had been controllable, but sometimes it’s hard to
> control lighting in such a situation. F16 with a ring flash would be
> a good way to get this kind of thing.
No, that would look like crap. The backlight reflected off the ceiling
gave much better color and glow than a front lit shot ever could.
> AlanBrown2: This is an interesting shot. Good texture, isolated
> focus works and I wonder what made the scratch marks on the fungus??!
Slugs, insects. It's a mushroom. Dead from last year, picked up this year.
> AlanBrown3: Honestly? Boring!!!
Deadline was close.
> AlanBrown1: Pretty good spider shot, a real macro for a change. Be
> nice if the contrast had been controllable, but sometimes it’s hard to
> control lighting in such a situation. F16 with a ring flash would be
> a good way to get this kind of thing.
No, that would look like crap. The backlight reflected off the ceiling
gave much better color and glow than a front lit shot ever could.
> AlanBrown2: This is an interesting shot. Good texture, isolated
> focus works and I wonder what made the scratch marks on the fungus??!
Slugs, insects. It's a mushroom. Dead from last year, picked up this year.
Alan Browne
Jun 2, 2012, 3:11:06 PM6/2/12
to
On 2012-05-31 18:41 , tony cooper wrote:
> Alan Browne: The spider's good, and they are harder to shoot than
> some think. Hard to get them isolated from the background as was done
> here. Must have been in a dark corner somewhere to force you to
> 1/100th at f/8 and 800 ISO.
I was shooting something else when he "dropped" in on me. I forgot to
> Alan Browne: The spider's good, and they are harder to shoot than
> some think. Hard to get them isolated from the background as was done
> here. Must have been in a dark corner somewhere to force you to
> 1/100th at f/8 and 800 ISO.
set the ISO and the shutter speed appropriately. I snapped on the flash
and pointed that at the ceiling (I was standing on a chair to shoot
him). Set the lens to 1:1 (macro) and focused by swaying. He was quite
uncooperative and it was impossible to get his head in the shot.
I should have dialed that to f/16 @ 1/250 and ISO 160.
Alan Browne
Jun 3, 2012, 3:53:23 PM6/3/12
to
and upon...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a12ha11lxy1xxxu/20120603_0012CRPSML%20copy.jpg
Bo...@somewhere.com
Jun 3, 2012, 7:05:53 PM6/3/12
to
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 15:53:23 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>On 2012-05-31 20:30 , Bo...@somewhere.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 18:41:24 -0400, tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>>>
>>> Sometimes I comment on all, and sometimes just on a few. The latter,
>>> this time.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Bob Flint: The snail race is a quite interesting shot with all
>>> contenders in sharp focus. If you can train snails to race, you
>>> should be able to train them to race on a less distracting track.
>>>
>>
>> I picked that background on purpose as I am a firm believer in natural nature
>> shots. I like to see the environment of the creatures in the photos. It IS a
>> bit busy though... BTW all that liquid is snail slime.... ehhhhhwwwww!
>
>Of course when mushroom hunting one may prefer to avoid those snacked on
>and upon...
>
>https://www.dropbox.com/s/a12ha11lxy1xxxu/20120603_0012CRPSML%20copy.jpg
Well I didn't know they ate mushrooms... good pic!
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>On 2012-05-31 20:30 , Bo...@somewhere.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 18:41:24 -0400, tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>>>
>>> Sometimes I comment on all, and sometimes just on a few. The latter,
>>> this time.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Bob Flint: The snail race is a quite interesting shot with all
>>> contenders in sharp focus. If you can train snails to race, you
>>> should be able to train them to race on a less distracting track.
>>>
>>
>> I picked that background on purpose as I am a firm believer in natural nature
>> shots. I like to see the environment of the creatures in the photos. It IS a
>> bit busy though... BTW all that liquid is snail slime.... ehhhhhwwwww!
>
>Of course when mushroom hunting one may prefer to avoid those snacked on
>and upon...
>
>https://www.dropbox.com/s/a12ha11lxy1xxxu/20120603_0012CRPSML%20copy.jpg
Robert Coe
Jun 17, 2012, 1:01:18 PM6/17/12
to
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:07:21 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
taking good pictures is. As you do it more, and start to learn what to look
for in others' work, it will help you see what to look for in your own. Say
what you think, and compare your impressions with those of others who comment
on the same images. As you get better at it, your insight will benefit both
you and the other participants.
Bob
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
: On 2012-06-01 04:23 , MG wrote:
: > "SI Committee" <si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:cLWdnX9kt5aN9VjS...@giganews.com...
: >> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
: >>
: >> --
: >> The Committee
: >
: > I am new to Shoot Ins, so I don't feel competent to comment on other
: > peoples work.
:
: Not at all. Say what you feel/think about the images.
And keep in mind that becoming a good critic is as much a learning process as
: > "SI Committee" <si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:cLWdnX9kt5aN9VjS...@giganews.com...
: >> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
: >>
: >> --
: >> The Committee
: >
: > I am new to Shoot Ins, so I don't feel competent to comment on other
: > peoples work.
:
: Not at all. Say what you feel/think about the images.
taking good pictures is. As you do it more, and start to learn what to look
for in others' work, it will help you see what to look for in your own. Say
what you think, and compare your impressions with those of others who comment
on the same images. As you get better at it, your insight will benefit both
you and the other participants.
Bob
0 new messages