getting up close and personal
Jonathan
Mark
"Jonathan" <fdgfdg...@gfhfghfh.com> wrote in message
news:v6lue8e...@corp.supernews.com...
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=191364
Wow!
These are amazing shots.
Welder63
... hope u don`t mind but i printed off the tutorials...
very inspiring indeed.
I feel sorry for the people who will miss this thread :(
keep up the good work.
Sparky,
U.K.
Mike Fields
very cooperative when it comes to holding still for pictures
(they have a way of departing *just* as you take the
picture !!)
--
Mike "mikey" Fields
http://home.attbi.com/~mike.fields/
outgoing email scanned by Norton Antivirus ... is that good ?
WhoaIsMe
<fdgfdg...@gfhfghfh.com> wrote:
>http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=191364
>
I agree with the other posters. First-rate shots.
Here comes the nasty critique part ... (but I'll try to be very
constructive about it :-)
While I understand the necessity for using a ring-flash or ring-light,
fill flashes, etc. at times like this -- considering the lenses in
use, very small f/ratios for needed long depth-of-field etc.,
difficult lighting situations, not to mention trying to stop their
motion at what could end up being very long exposures -- using those
extra light sources gives all the photos an artificial, sterile,
in-the-lab, staged,look and feeling to them. You ended up removing the
"nature" from nature, the very thing you were trying to capture (I
hope). :-( While absolutely splendid photos for a biology text-book,
they left me cold and unimpressed at first. My first thoughts, when
looking at the page from the main URL above, was that all your shots
were done in the studio, easy for anyone to do, 'til I read your
tutorial to find out you were doing these hand-held in the field. Then
I became impressed again. :-)
Without the ambiance and warmth of natural sunlight, the contrasting
hint of daylight-blue in the natural shadows from the sky ... well ...
if they had those too these would be absolutely fantastic. (Not to
mention all the extra iridescent colors that would have shown up in
their eyes and wings and stuff.) I'm not familiar with using most of
today's high-tech toys for artificial lighting, but you might want to
try standard portrait lighting techniques like low-level fill-flash
modes. Or like on the Fuji cameras that have what they call "slow
synchro" mode. Where it takes as much of the photo with available
lighting then fires the flash to only fill in the shadows.
It's also easy to tape some neutral-density plastic filter material
over a flash to bring its auto-mode flash sensors back within range of
its electronics for ultra-closeups. You might even be able to cheat
with using a cooler-tone diffuser plastic on a lower fill or
ring-flash, and a warmer one on an upper flash, trying to recreate the
lighting in nature. It'll put some of the feeling of nature back into
your shots. I personally prefer no flash at all. I'm an existing-light
fanatic. Studio-lighting (sources and methods) and nature photography
are in direct opposition, self-defeating, in my perceptions and mind.
Other than that, you do excellent work (albeit clinical work). Thanks
for sharing them. And the work you put into the tutorial is great too,
for those that would like to take a try at things like this.
Just ... TONE DOWN THAT FLASH! :-)
Mark
"WhoaIsMe" <antisp...@inbox.net> wrote in message
news:1rvv6vkfdha6g23me...@4ax.com...
Have you tried to...hand-hold macro shots...of that magnification...of
moving creatures...coping with camera-shake AND subject movement...WITHOUT
significant flash??? These are not still life subjects.
Try it some time. You'll begin to understand.
>
>
WhoaIsMe
>Have you tried to...hand-hold macro shots...of that magnification...of
>moving creatures...coping with camera-shake AND subject movement...WITHOUT
>significant flash??? These are not still life subjects.
>Try it some time. You'll begin to understand.
Yes, I have, successfully. A link to some not-quite-so-close-up photos
of mine in another recent thread on macro shots, all hand-held, no
flash, with an inexpensive Fuji FinePix camera to which I scotch-taped
a cheap plastic lens that I literally dug out of an old 1970's 126
camera to increase its macro range. I couldn't get closer than that
with the camera and lenses I had available at the time. (That will
change soon.)
You can see those sample photos at the URL below, middle row, in case
you missed that thread. Taken during a week when I borrowed a friend's
digital camera. Check out the two of the blister-beetle (about the
same size as a med-large ant) on the middle-row, right. That's
up-close, hand-held, and NO FLASH. (Was a heavily overcast and breezy
day. So I didn't even get to use the fastest shutter speed available.)
And mind you, I had to even wait for the breeze to die down for all
those shots (including the dragonfly one) so not only did I have to
wait for the plants to stop waving around (the thistle plant about 4
ft. high and swinging wide) but that the beetle had to crawl to the
right position too. It's called "patience" my dear man, PATIENCE ....
and perseverance. (all the photos on that page are hand-held)
http://www.geocities.com/koyaanis1/pics.htm
And yes, I DO understand the challenge, completely. But it's not
impossible. Just another hurdle to overcome for the photographer that
wants to go from "expensive high-tech toys makes it child's play" (but
sterile) to superb excellence in nature photography. You can throw
money at it and make it so easy that anyone who has comparable money
can do it the same way too, or throw talent at it so you are a
photographer-in-a-million with shots that nobody else can do as well.
I don't have money (money? what's that?), I only have talent. Once I
get my better camera I'll hope one day to have sample shots and will
have listed the tricks and techniques I've used to make it all
possible. (Like the simple one I mentioned in that other thread, of
grabbing a brick or rock in your hands along with the camera to stop
camera-shake, by trying to overcome the inertia from the extra mass.
Simple, effective, and free.)
"We haven't the money. So we've got to think." - Ernest Rutherford,
in the Bulletin of the Institute of Physics, 1962
David Jones
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 07:04:42 GMT, "Mark" <mjmo...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >Have you tried to...hand-hold macro shots...of that magnification...of
> >moving creatures...coping with camera-shake AND subject
movement...WITHOUT
> >significant flash??? These are not still life subjects.
> >Try it some time. You'll begin to understand.
>
> Yes, I have, successfully. A link to some not-quite-so-close-up photos
> of mine in another recent thread on macro shots, all hand-held, no
> flash, with an inexpensive Fuji FinePix camera to which I scotch-taped
> a cheap plastic lens that I literally dug out of an old 1970's 126
> camera to increase its macro range. I couldn't get closer than that
> with the camera and lenses I had available at the time. (That will
> change soon.)
>
> You can see those sample photos at the URL below, middle row, in case
> Check out the two of the blister-beetle (about the
> same size as a med-large ant) on the middle-row, right. That's
> up-close, hand-held, and NO FLASH. (Was a heavily overcast and breezy
> day. So I didn't even get to use the fastest shutter speed available.)
> And mind you, I had to even wait for the breeze to die down for all
> those shots (including the dragonfly one) so not only did I have to
> wait for the plants to stop waving around (the thistle plant about 4
> ft. high and swinging wide) but that the beetle had to crawl to the
> right position too. It's called "patience" my dear man, PATIENCE ....
> and perseverance. (all the photos on that page are hand-held)
>
> http://www.geocities.com/koyaanis1/pics.htm
Come on "WhoaIsMe", those images of yours are a magnitude away from the
insect images that you are criticizing in terms of the requirements of depth
of field, lighting, camera shake etc , and at that distance from the insects
much less demanding to obtain.
>
> And yes, I DO understand the challenge, completely. But it's not
> impossible. Just another hurdle to overcome for the photographer that
> wants to go from "expensive high-tech toys makes it child's play" (but
> sterile) to superb excellence in nature photography. You can throw
> money at it and make it so easy that anyone who has comparable money
> can do it the same way too, or throw talent at it so you are a
> photographer-in-a-million with shots that nobody else can do as well.
> I don't have money (money? what's that?), I only have talent. Once I
> get my better camera I'll hope one day to have sample shots and will
> have listed the tricks and techniques I've used to make it all
> possible. (Like the simple one I mentioned in that other thread, of
> grabbing a brick or rock in your hands along with the camera to stop
> camera-shake, by trying to overcome the inertia from the extra mass.
> Simple, effective, and free.)
Even talent can do with a bit of help on times. I see that even yours needs
a better camera to enable it to flourish. By the way, doesn't the use of a
digital camera put you at risk of your own criticism of "expensive high-tech
toys ....?
You cannot wave a magic wand to produce those images of "superb excellence"
that you promise to produce one day - you have to use the right tools for
the job. All the talent in the world will not get you the picture you want
without them. If that means using a different camera, or a different lens,
on an adaptor, or a combination of all three then that is what you will do.
If you are able to improvise (and I find that is necessary very often) then
good luck to you, but there are times when a problem cannot be solved simply
by holding a rock in your hand as well as the camera.
David Jones
Garden Wildlife Diaries and birdbox webcam at
www.mybitoftheplanet.com
Mark
That you offer these images as a comparison only points to your lack of
understanding. The images you post do not even require special macro
technique!! They are **MILES** away from anything resembling what is being
discussed here.
WhoaIsMe
>That you offer these images as a comparison only points to your lack of
>understanding. The images you post do not even require special macro
>technique!! They are **MILES** away from anything resembling what is being
>discussed here.
>
Hmm.. he took a photo of an insect the size of an ant. I took a clear
photo of an insect the size of an ant. Yeah, *miles* away. Okay.
WhoaIsMe
<david....@net.ntl.com> wrote:
>Come on "WhoaIsMe", those images of yours are a magnitude away from the
>insect images that you are criticizing in terms of the requirements of depth
>of field, lighting, camera shake etc , and at that distance from the insects
>much less demanding to obtain.
>
I totally agree, but it just goes to show what one can do without all
those extras that he used to destroy the true "nature" in his
photography.
>
>Even talent can do with a bit of help on times. I see that even yours needs
>a better camera to enable it to flourish. By the way, doesn't the use of a
>digital camera put you at risk of your own criticism of "expensive high-tech
>toys ....?
I suppose it could, but the same could be said of trying to sketch
them out in a clay tablet with stylus outside of your cave. I ONLY
critiqued the use of way, way, way too much flash, making those photos
sterile. There was nothing natural about them anymore. He might as
well have used preserved and mounted insects resting on some plastic
plants. He would have obtained the same effects, and even better
photos. He wasted his time hand-holding his camera in the field, none
of that shows in the photos because he wiped it out with the flash.
>
>You cannot wave a magic wand to produce those images of "superb excellence"
>that you promise to produce one day - you have to use the right tools for
>the job. All the talent in the world will not get you the picture you want
>without them. If that means using a different camera, or a different lens,
>on an adaptor, or a combination of all three then that is what you will do.
>If you are able to improvise (and I find that is necessary very often) then
>good luck to you, but there are times when a problem cannot be solved simply
>by holding a rock in your hand as well as the camera.
While I'll agree to that, I think you people are taking this WAY out
of proportion here. My critique was ONLY in that he obliterated any
evidence of life and nature in his photos (by removing all traces of
natural lighting), the very things I thought he was trying to capture.
I thought the whole point was to capture a new kind of "face". He
didn't capture faces, he captured dead and lifeless masks of corpses.
I found them to be nothing but sterile, clinical, and "why bother"
photos. While technically excellent, anyone can do that given the
right tools.
As for motion of the insects or shallow depth of field effects, are
you going to tell me that photographers don't purposely shut down
available light levels with neutral-density filters so they can more
closely recreate nature in their photography? By doing things like
getting motion blur in a waterfall or stream, or a fast moving bike.
Or put shallow-depth-of field to use to enhance the artistic-focus of
the subject? (Something I use all the time, every chance I get.) I
think both of you are missing the point of my critique. (And one of
the more important aspects to photography as a whole -- to say
something with your photography to others, to bring back the reality
of LIFE to share with others.)
He didn't capture any hint of the life of nature at all, he captured
cold and dead specimens in a lab. Excellent work too, but nothing I'd
care to look at again. If I want to see photos like that again I can
open up any biology text-book. It's been done before, on
ad-infinauseum, it's easy using his techniques, anyone can do that.
His quick and easy "remove all challenges" flash lighting techniques
made his photos into "nothing special".
The closeups of the eyes in those insects should have been done in the
lab, under a med-power dissecting microscope. He could have obtained
the very same photos with even less bother. He wasted his time even
going outside with his flash system. He should have had the insects
mailed to him from a specimen supply-house, dead in a box, to his
forensics lab in some basement next to the morgue where he likes to
live. Then take their photos at leisure under even more strict
lighting conditions and controls for even greater depth of field,
clarity, and magnification. He could have even done panorama macro
shots and knitted them together for amazing detail far beyond what is
even available in the camera. Why'd he stop at just using flash in the
field if that's all he was going after was depth of field and
resolution? (The very things you seem to think are the only things
important here. Why aren't you critiquing him for not trying for even
more of those qualities if that's all that trips your triggers about
photography?)
See my point? I bet not. But while you're at it, the least you can do
is understand the excellent advice I offered to him, should he ever
want to try to capture *REAL* LIFE in his photos someday. I give
constructive criticisms, a thing both of you seem to be incapable of.
Perhaps this is just a disagreement between tech-head and artist, and
none of us will ever really see the others' reasoning.
If that's the case, then may your world and universe become a sterile
gray-card, denoted in perfectly clear, infinite strings made up of the
number 128 (or other power of 2), to match your clinically perfect
values of what you think photography is all about. Then you'll really
be happy. (won't you?)
"If I can do it, then you can do it. If you can do it, then he can do
it. If he can do it, then we can do it! If we can do it, then they can
do it!! If they can do it, then EVERYONE can do it!!!! And if everyone
can do it ............ why bother?" ( - caMel - )
Mark
Before you embarrass yourself any further, consider teh following.
He is doing true macro work (as in...the subject appears at, or greater than
a 1:1 ratio on the sensor plane). You, are taking snapshots from fairly
close up, but are FAR from what would be considered truly macro shots. Some
may argue that "macro" simply means close focusing...which I don't have a
problem with. It's just that here, you are comparing apples to oranges. It
makes absolutely zero difference that you are photographing the same type of
subject. Distance and magnification are what effect depth of field more
than anything.
The difference in terms of depth of field between your shot-distance and his
are no less than HUGE. Read. Learn. Try. You'll understand...if not
today, then perhaps in the future.
Mark
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:12:58 -0000, "David Jones"
> <david....@net.ntl.com> wrote:
>
> >Come on "WhoaIsMe", those images of yours are a magnitude away from the
> >insect images that you are criticizing in terms of the requirements of
depth
> >of field, lighting, camera shake etc , and at that distance from the
insects
> >much less demanding to obtain.
> >
>
> I totally agree, but it just goes to show what one can do without all
> those extras that he used to destroy the true "nature" in his
> photography.
He "destroyed" it?
Your pictures don't even include his subjects...i.e., the intricate color
patterns within the eyes. Your shots have reduced this to non-existence.
No comparison.
David Jones
Come on, "WhoaIsMe", let's get things into sensible proportions here. How
big is the blister beetle in your photographs - somewhere between 0.5 and 1
inch? In my bit of the world that would be a truly exceptional ant. When I
think ant I'm talking about an insect that is usually 0.2 inches at the
most. How would you have framed that so that the subject of the picture is
'ant on flower' rather than 'flower with (small) ant on it'?
Because of the pseudo-macro facilities offered on them, many of today's
digital cameras would be able to take images like yours of the beetle (and
the dragonfly etc), in the hands of most of their users. Jonathan has taken
a step beyond those capabilities and even though his images leave you cold,
and that is your free choice, they are at least as valid and worthwhile as
anything you have presented to further your criticisms.
Even though I accept that your beetle photographs were taken 'in the wild'
there is already potential a problem in accepting that they were taken in
those 'natural' conditions as the backround is totally out of focus (and
could easily have been reproduced on a table top). If this is the case with
your images, then surely you can see that once you move closer the effect of
'isolation' becomes virtually unavoidable. In this context there is little
to choose between your images and those of Jonathan.
On a positive note, your images do put the beetles into a context by them
being on flowers. However, if you can accept criticism, even though you
claim to have taken "a clear photo of an insect the size of an ant", in
neither picture is the insect sharp enough if the photo is of the insect and
not the flower, especially the "contrastlunch" image.
As far as lighting goes, the "contrastlunch" image is very dull, with none
of the necessary 'ambiance and warmth of natural sunlight, the contrasting
hint of daylight-blue in the natural shadows from the sky' that you talk
about, but you still decided to put it into your gallery -why?. The direct
lighting in the other image is more in keeping with your approach, but even
in that bright light you did not use enough depth of field to get all the
insect's back as sharp as it could have been. Despite good natural lighting
the dragonfly image would have been a lot better if you had thought to
ensure that the eye facing the camera was in focus.
When taking pictures of living things, the two types of image can work to
complement each other, the broad view to give context and the close-up to
give detail, One is not better than the other in what it shows, but,
whatever the artistic talent of the photographer there can be a great
difference in the technical skills and equipment required.
If you are really saying that Jonathan's techniques have given the
photographs in has gallery "an artificial, sterile, in-the-lab, staged,look
and feeling to them" then either you have never tried looking that closely
at insects or, to be blunt your monitor needs adjusting. For pictures taken
that close, the context of the images is as natural as they could possibly
be, and while I may question the position of the focusing plane in a couple
of the images, on my monitor the colours are vibrant, natural(and including
the iridescent colors you seem to think are absent), and 'natural' shadows
can be found throughout them.
Those images would easily match the artistic merit of any of the images that
you offer to back up your arguments. To get much more real they would need
to move!
David Jones
Garden Wildlife Diaries and Nestbox Webcam at
www.mybitoftheplanet.com
WhoaIsMe
<david....@net.ntl.com> wrote:
>
>"WhoaIsMe" <antisp...@inbox.net> wrote in message
>news:68v47v8pocfri16h0...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:06:13 -0800, "Mark" <mjmo...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >That you offer these images as a comparison only points to your lack of
>> >understanding. The images you post do not even require special macro
>> >technique!! They are **MILES** away from anything resembling what is
>being
>> >discussed here.
>> >
>>
>> Hmm.. he took a photo of an insect the size of an ant. I took a clear
>> photo of an insect the size of an ant. Yeah, *miles* away. Okay.
>>
>
>Come on, "WhoaIsMe", let's get things into sensible proportions here. How
>big is the blister beetle in your photographs - somewhere between 0.5 and 1
>inch?
They're not large, about 0.5 inches at the max usually. Maybe 0.7
inches on a good day. I guess we have different ants, I'm used to
wood-ants that are commonly that size.
>Even though I accept that your beetle photographs were taken 'in the wild'
>there is already potential a problem in accepting that they were taken in
>those 'natural' conditions as the backround is totally out of focus (and
>could easily have been reproduced on a table top).
Then I guess you don't look at intensity and hue of shadows and
highlights in photographs. Those are blaring to me in any photography.
The lack of them is life-less and sterile. There's a reason that
artists have to paint a catch-light in they eyes of a portrait. Ever
see a painting without one? You'll know right away that something is
dreadfully wrong. They don't usually paint them as little white
circles in the center of the eye to mimic a ring-flash either. It
would look *UN*NATURAL*. That's what I saw in those photos --
something dreadfully wrong and unnatural. Those other photos were
presented as "faces", "portraits" of another life-form, they were
anything but faces and portraits. Title those pages to "How to do
Clinically Sterile Precision Macro-photography of Insects for
Laboratory Text-books" and I'd have no complaints. I see a lot of that
online. What a pity.
>On a positive note, your images do put the beetles into a context by them
>being on flowers. However, if you can accept criticism, even though you
>claim to have taken "a clear photo of an insect the size of an ant", in
>neither picture is the insect sharp enough if the photo is of the insect and
>not the flower, especially the "contrastlunch" image.
Welcome to my world of playing with borrowed inexpensive cameras and
plastic lenses dug out of 1970's 126-instamatics and affixed with
scotch tape. That's what poor artists do, we make do with whatever we
can. And more times than not, because of that, we end up doing things
that no money nor equipment in the world can ever reproduce. They
don't know how. They don't know what creativity means.
>
>As far as lighting goes, the "contrastlunch" image is very dull, with none
>of the necessary 'ambiance and warmth of natural sunlight, the contrasting
>hint of daylight-blue in the natural shadows from the sky' that you talk
>about, but you still decided to put it into your gallery -why?.
Those were only tests of the camera to show to some friends online at
the time when we'd be chatting about bugs and critters and plants
Tests to see if I could be happy with a camera like that. I butted up
against its limits so many times that I realized I could not take the
kinds of photos I'm used to taking and wanted to explore further, to
see if I could push its limits beyond what they had intended to sell.
I'd like to see anyone else accomplish photos like that though, with a
Fuji FinePix 2600 -- hand-held, no flash. There should be a new field
of photography contests like there are for fishermen using ultra-light
tackle, or HAMs that try to transmit across the world on an AAA or
mercury watch batteries. I'd like to see what some people can do with
as little as possible. It would divide the men from the boys with rich
men's toys. I've been more impressed in the past with photos done with
some pin-hole cameras made out of oatmeal boxes, foil, and a needle,
than anything that has been done with high-quality equipment.
As far as the missing shadows in that one, haven't you been reading?
The sky was overcast that day, no sharp shadow on any of those in that
middle row (that row was taken on a different day than the top and
bottom rows). The one taken on the purple flower (a thistle species
with blossoms about 1.0-1.5 inches across, in clusters) is totally
devoid of any shadows because the overcast came on full during that
one, you couldn't even see the shape of the sun anymore when you
looked at it. I didn't even get to use the highest shutter speed for
that photo (I think it only had a 1/200 of a second fastest shutter
speed). Yet it still retains the ambiance of real life, from the
cooler shadows on the undersides of the beetle, natural lighting from
above, something that the other photos in question are without.
> The direct
>lighting in the other image is more in keeping with your approach, but even
>in that bright light you did not use enough depth of field to get all the
>insect's back as sharp as it could have been. Despite good natural lighting
>the dragonfly image would have been a lot better if you had thought to
>ensure that the eye facing the camera was in focus.
Yep, I totally agree, I wish it was, but one does not have much
control over how much sun is coming through the overcast. You shoot
when it's the best time, and patiently wait for that best time. And
hope like hell that the dragonfly will decide it's a good time to wait
there too. It's not easy to capture a photo of a dragonfly on a blade
of wheat that's waving in the breeze, I was just glad he finally
stayed on that one long enough that time (I stalked him around that
field for a good 25 minutes from plant to plant). Using the plastic
lens on the camera I had to use the camera's lens in zoom mode. While
this afforded wonderful working distance it dropped the depth-of-field
to less than 1/4-1/2 inch at the distance I shot that one at.
Something I was glad to discover because I like using shallow depth of
field in my photography (it's the only way to frame a subject in the
3rd dimension in 2-dimensional photography. The other 2 dimensions are
denoted by the edges of the photo). I was greatly upset that digital
cameras generally lack that ability. A favorite tool was gone -- til I
tried something new to bring it back. Then I thought maybe there was
hope for digital cameras after-all.
>
>When taking pictures of living things, the two types of image can work to
>complement each other, the broad view to give context and the close-up to
>give detail, One is not better than the other in what it shows, but,
>whatever the artistic talent of the photographer there can be a great
>difference in the technical skills and equipment required.
Yep, I agree, but you'll note, I repeatedly said that those other
macro shots are EXCELLENT (why is everyone thinking and replying as if
I never said that?), I give high praise for their technical
excellence. How many times do I have to say -- that the *ONLY*
exception I take with them is that they are sterile, text-book fodder,
nothing I'd care to hang on my wall nor look at again unless I was
studying mandible parts to differentiate species. My personal
preference for what I think photography is all about is bringing
*life* to photos, and to share that quality of *life* with others
whenever possible. Not to destroy that quality of life with artificial
lighting just because that's the easy way out.
>
>If you are really saying that Jonathan's techniques have given the
>photographs in has gallery "an artificial, sterile, in-the-lab, staged,look
>and feeling to them" then either you have never tried looking that closely
>at insects or, to be blunt your monitor needs adjusting.
On the contrary, I've been studying biology as well as insect-life
ever since I got my first "How and Why - Bees and Ants" book when I
was 5 years old.
>For pictures taken
>that close, the context of the images is as natural as they could possibly
>be, and while I may question the position of the focusing plane in a couple
>of the images, on my monitor the colours are vibrant, natural(and including
>the iridescent colors you seem to think are absent), and 'natural' shadows
>can be found throughout them.
>
>Those images would easily match the artistic merit of any of the images that
>you offer to back up your arguments. To get much more real they would need
>to move!
Nope, I can't agree at all on that point. Maybe you need to get out
and crawl through some brush and fields some more and meet them on
their own turf. If you spot any insects with circles for catch-lights
in the center of their eyes and no shadows under them let me know,
then I'll suggest you go to an optometrist, or to quit trying to
bull-shit others.
>
>David Jones
>Garden Wildlife Diaries and Nestbox Webcam at
>www.mybitoftheplanet.com
>
>
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I like photography that speaks
of life, shares an important moment in that life's life. Whereas it
seems that you people like photography that screams of the digital
precision of a sterile robot and silicon chips. Two different
universes of thought and values.
I live in some remote woods (this, the net, is my only connection to
civilization other than an occasional visitor every few years, I've
not seen another human face for over 2.5 yrs now). I am in those
fields and woods with those insects and animals every day. I guess
this is why I took exception with those photos and why they deserved
that ONE critique. Because some favorite allies, full of life and
purpose, are being shown as sterile mounted specimens in lab lighting
conditions with artificial lighting (*just* because of over-use of
flash). The photos speak to me of those that have no consideration for
the life of other living beings anymore. Scientists in a lab where
they only see life as something they can use and abuse for their own
purposes. That's not a value of humanity that I'd ever care to hang on
my wall.
Dat's my story and I'm stickin' wid it! :-)
WhoaIsMe
>
<tech head with no life left, comments snipped>
May you be happy in your precision digital world. :-)
"The real danger is not that computers will begin to think like men,
but that men will begin to think like computers."
You don't get it, you lost the concept of "life".
David Jones
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 08:59:36 -0000, "David Jones"
> <david....@net.ntl.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"WhoaIsMe" <antisp...@inbox.net> wrote in message
> >news:68v47v8pocfri16h0...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:06:13 -0800, "Mark" <mjmo...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >That you offer these images as a comparison only points to your lack
of
> >> >understanding. The images you post do not even require special macro
> >> >technique!! They are **MILES** away from anything resembling what is
> >being
> >> >discussed here.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hmm.. he took a photo of an insect the size of an ant. I took a clear
> >> photo of an insect the size of an ant. Yeah, *miles* away. Okay.
> >>
> >
> >Come on, "WhoaIsMe", let's get things into sensible proportions here. How
> >big is the blister beetle in your photographs - somewhere between 0.5
and 1
> >inch?
>
> They're not large, about 0.5 inches at the max usually. Maybe 0.7
> inches on a good day. I guess we have different ants, I'm used to
> wood-ants that are commonly that size.
I'm willing to accept that, our largest ants are only about three eights of
an inch long
>
> >Even though I accept that your beetle photographs were taken 'in the
wild'
> >there is already potential a problem in accepting that they were taken in
> >those 'natural' conditions as the backround is totally out of focus (and
> >could easily have been reproduced on a table top).
>
> Then I guess you don't look at intensity and hue of shadows and
> highlights in photographs. Those are blaring to me in any photography.
> The lack of them is life-less and sterile. There's a reason that
> artists have to paint a catch-light in they eyes of a portrait. Ever
> see a painting without one? You'll know right away that something is
> dreadfully wrong. They don't usually paint them as little white
> circles in the center of the eye to mimic a ring-flash either. It
> would look *UN*NATURAL*. That's what I saw in those photos --
> something dreadfully wrong and unnatural. Those other photos were
> presented as "faces", "portraits" of another life-form, they were
> anything but faces and portraits. Title those pages to "How to do
> Clinically Sterile Precision Macro-photography of Insects for
> Laboratory Text-books" and I'd have no complaints. I see a lot of that
> online. What a pity.
Yes I do consider those things in photographs that I look at. While you are
quite correct to talk about the importance of the catch-light in portraits,
a single catch-light is characteristic of those animals (including us, of
course) with a simple eye structure, rather than the compound structure of
the insects, where the situation is much more complex because of the large
number of facets covering a variably convex surface.
The rings you talk about can be produced in daylight on an insect's compound
eye.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think that a ring flash was used in
any of those photographs. If you could dare to look again at the pictures,
please tell us which one(s) are, in your opinion taken with a ringflash. I
can find no reference to Mark Plonsky having used one.
>
> Welcome to my world of playing with borrowed inexpensive cameras and
> plastic lenses dug out of 1970's 126-instamatics and affixed with
> scotch tape. That's what poor artists do, we make do with whatever we
> can. And more times than not, because of that, we end up doing things
> that no money nor equipment in the world can ever reproduce. They
> don't know how. They don't know what creativity means.
>
I have been improvising with available equipment for years so what you are
doing is not new to me. I have often make up equipment out of scrap, or
discarded things in order to achieve or create what I could not have
afforded to do otherwise so don't give me that rubbish about 'They don't
know how. They don't know what creativity means'. You don't have a monopoly
on ingenuity.
>
> Those were only tests of the camera to show to some friends online at
> the time when we'd be chatting about bugs and critters and plants
> Tests to see if I could be happy with a camera like that. I butted up
> against its limits so many times that I realized I could not take the
> kinds of photos I'm used to taking and wanted to explore further, to
> see if I could push its limits beyond what they had intended to sell.
>
If they were only tests then you should have said so and not put them
forward as examples of your art in your arguments. It is a pity that you did
not simply put them forward as examples of how your experiment in simple
improvisation had gone for others to judge for themselves, and not launched
into a speech about how much better your photography technique is so
superior that of Mark. Further, to bring money into the argument, as you
have done again here really does suggest a bitterness and does nothing to
further your cause.
> I'd like to see anyone else accomplish photos like that though, with a
> Fuji FinePix 2600 -- hand-held, no flash. There should be a new field
> of photography contests like there are for fishermen using ultra-light
> tackle, or HAMs that try to transmit across the world on an AAA or
> mercury watch batteries. I'd like to see what some people can do with
> as little as possible. It would divide the men from the boys with rich
> men's toys. I've been more impressed in the past with photos done with
> some pin-hole cameras made out of oatmeal boxes, foil, and a needle,
> than anything that has been done with high-quality equipment.
There is room for all these techniques. When I used to teach I included a
unit in photography where we made pin-hole cameras, from matchbox size up to
the classroom itself, putting the kids inside the camera itself. When it
came to using lens based cameras they too were all home made. The results
that the pupils obtained were very impressive and I hope that they went away
with some fuller understanding of not just the mechanics but also the magic
of photography.
Of course there are always challenges that you can choose to take up, the
ham radio example you give is a good one, but it is unlikely that,along side
that effort that radio operator would not still be using more powerful
equipment ( possibly home-made as well). While the results can be very
impressive when a minimalist approach is followed, it does not follow that
it is always the best or the most appropriate for every situation, and that
is most certainly true in wildlife photography.
>
> As far as the missing shadows in that one, haven't you been reading?
> The sky was overcast that day, no sharp shadow on any of those in that
> middle row (that row was taken on a different day than the top and
> bottom rows). The one taken on the purple flower (a thistle species
> with blossoms about 1.0-1.5 inches across, in clusters) is totally
> devoid of any shadows because the overcast came on full during that
> one, you couldn't even see the shape of the sun anymore when you
> looked at it. I didn't even get to use the highest shutter speed for
> that photo (I think it only had a 1/200 of a second fastest shutter
> speed). Yet it still retains the ambiance of real life, from the
> cooler shadows on the undersides of the beetle, natural lighting from
> above, something that the other photos in question are without.
>
Yes I did read what you said, but it was you who put that photograph forward
as an example of all you said was missing from those taken by Mark.
>
> Yep, I totally agree, I wish it was, but one does not have much
> control over how much sun is coming through the overcast. You shoot
> when it's the best time, and patiently wait for that best time. And
> hope like hell that the dragonfly will decide it's a good time to wait
> there too. It's not easy to capture a photo of a dragonfly on a blade
> of wheat that's waving in the breeze, I was just glad he finally
> stayed on that one long enough that time (I stalked him around that
> field for a good 25 minutes from plant to plant). Using the plastic
> lens on the camera I had to use the camera's lens in zoom mode. While
> this afforded wonderful working distance it dropped the depth-of-field
> to less than 1/4-1/2 inch at the distance I shot that one at.
> Something I was glad to discover because I like using shallow depth of
> field in my photography (it's the only way to frame a subject in the
> 3rd dimension in 2-dimensional photography. The other 2 dimensions are
> denoted by the edges of the photo). I was greatly upset that digital
> cameras generally lack that ability. A favorite tool was gone -- til I
> tried something new to bring it back. Then I thought maybe there was
> hope for digital cameras after-all.
>
I'm glad to see that we are in agreement on something at last. Perhaps it
would have been better to give this explanation in the first place. Yes it
is difficult to capture the moment when the subject is on something that is
moving in the breeze, but that is one of the great features of the digital
camera - you can stalk something all day and not waste film. And yes, having
a close-up attachment on the front of the camera (be it a lens form a Kodak
Brownie or an enlarger lens in my case) combined with the lens zoomed out to
its maximum setting can allow for shallow depth of field at a decent
subject/lens distance. Perhaps I should point out that the enlarger lens
does happen to be a high quality one, but before you get cross, I bought it,
along with two others as part of some scrapped darkroom equipment at a
car-boot sale for 10UKP (around $16?). These sales are my main source of old
equipment with which to improvise.
> Yep, I agree, but you'll note, I repeatedly said that those other
> macro shots are EXCELLENT (why is everyone thinking and replying as if
> I never said that?), I give high praise for their technical
> excellence. How many times do I have to say -- that the *ONLY*
> exception I take with them is that they are sterile, text-book fodder,
> nothing I'd care to hang on my wall nor look at again unless I was
> studying mandible parts to differentiate species. My personal
> preference for what I think photography is all about is bringing
> *life* to photos, and to share that quality of *life* with others
> whenever possible. Not to destroy that quality of life with artificial
> lighting just because that's the easy way out.
OK, lets be honest, you have every right to make your basic criticism about
those photographs. Having used many textbooks I would not be able to agree
with you. What made me cross was the way you then went on with a tirade
which basically suggested that anybody could have done it given the money
and that all it takes is nothing more than a simple camera with a stuck on
lens. If life could only be that simple....It can if you choose to have it
that way, but then you have to accept that in some circumstances you will
not be able to achieve what other can with a more complex approach.
> >If you are really saying that Jonathan's techniques have given the
> >photographs in has gallery "an artificial, sterile, in-the-lab,
staged,look
> >and feeling to them" then either you have never tried looking that
closely
> >at insects or, to be blunt your monitor needs adjusting.
>
> On the contrary, I've been studying biology as well as insect-life
> ever since I got my first "How and Why - Bees and Ants" book when I
> was 5 years old.
So have I, and 50+ years on I'm still learning.
>
> >For pictures taken
> >that close, the context of the images is as natural as they could
possibly
> >be, and while I may question the position of the focusing plane in a
couple
> >of the images, on my monitor the colours are vibrant, natural(and
including
> >the iridescent colors you seem to think are absent), and 'natural'
shadows
> >can be found throughout them.
> >
> >Those images would easily match the artistic merit of any of the images
that
> >you offer to back up your arguments. To get much more real they would
need
> >to move!
>
> Nope, I can't agree at all on that point. Maybe you need to get out
> and crawl through some brush and fields some more and meet them on
> their own turf. If you spot any insects with circles for catch-lights
> in the center of their eyes and no shadows under them let me know,
> then I'll suggest you go to an optometrist, or to quit trying to
> bull-shit others.
>
I'm not trying to b----s---- others, just trying to convince you that some
of your arguments are spoilt by your apparently agressive attitude to other
photographers.
Sorry, but I do wear the right specs and I do get down and personal with the
bugs etc in the undergrowth, on most days. It may just be in my own garden,
but the insects and other life forms are no less interesting and a challenge
for all that.
If I were using my ringflash ( yes I do own one, given to me when I retired
from teaching, although I rarely use it for just the reason we are now
trying to discuss) to take a picture of one of the frogs in my pond then the
ring of light would be obvious for all to see. A single source flash can
easily give too great a catch-light and even that needs to be used and
positioned carefully at times when natural lighting is just not bright
enough.
There are times when the light from a point source (including sunlight)
catches an insect's eye to form a (not always) circular pattern on the eye.
This follows what could be thought of almost as a contour around an area of
eye facets at the same angle to the source of light, unlike the single
catch-light that you would see in simple eyes like ours.
> We'll just have to agree to disagree. I like photography that speaks
> of life, shares an important moment in that life's life. Whereas it
> seems that you people like photography that screams of the digital
> precision of a sterile robot and silicon chips. Two different
> universes of thought and values.
I must make clear that just like you, I like photography that speaks of
life, shares an important moment in that life's life, which is one reason
why I use photography extensively in my garden wildlife diaries even when
those pictures are technically less that I would have liked.
It is possible to disagree on how to bring that about without you trying to
impose your attitude of 'I am an artist, I care - you people who have money
to throw at a challenge, you don't care'. I don't claim to be an artist, I
don't have enough money to buy the expensive toys, but, by god, I care a
great deal about representing the wildlife in my garden in the best way I
can. If I can capture the detail of an insect's face then that makes me no
less of a photographer, or means I care less about the insect I an
photographing!
> I live in some remote woods (this, the net, is my only connection to
> civilization other than an occasional visitor every few years, I've
> not seen another human face for over 2.5 yrs now). I am in those
> fields and woods with those insects and animals every day. I guess
> this is why I took exception with those photos and why they deserved
> that ONE critique. Because some favorite allies, full of life and
> purpose, are being shown as sterile mounted specimens in lab lighting
> conditions with artificial lighting (*just* because of over-use of
> flash). The photos speak to me of those that have no consideration for
> the life of other living beings anymore. Scientists in a lab where
> they only see life as something they can use and abuse for their own
> purposes. That's not a value of humanity that I'd ever care to hang on
> my wall.
Why do you finish off by going back to the same arguments again. That
another look at
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=1358451
Are you really saying that hoverfly is being shown as a "sterile mounted
specimen in lab lighting conditions with artificial lighting (*just* because
of over-use of flash)". Are you really saying that the vibrant colours in
this image at those of a dead specimen? By the way, you may notice what I
said about the lighting on the eyes. That circular area, mainly on the left
eye (as we look at it) is what I would expect to see when the source of
light is high above and slightly to the left of the insect. If a ringflash
had been used this would have been in a different place as the flash is
wrapped around the lens, and the underside of the fly would not have been in
that deep shadow. I know the backround is plain, but that could easily be
because of a fence or wall behind the fly.
Lets try to continue this discussion with a bit less of the slanging - we
are not talking about the use and abuse of laboratory animals. Unless I have
missed something, at no time has it been seriously suggested that Mark's
photography has any thing to do with this abuse, and it certainly has no
place in a forum where we are discussing photography.
David Jones
Garden Wildlife Daiaries and Nestbox Webcam at
www.mybitoftheplanet.com