[SI] New Mandates.

[Alan Browne]

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/62816810/SI%20mandate%20list%20-%20RO.pdf

Three themes popped to the top in the runoff, so we'll run three
overlapping themes:

Mandate DUE DATES
------------ ----------
Macro/Closup 2012.05.27
Doors 2012.06.03
Food 2012.06.10

Rulz enforced for this SI:
///////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

300 kB max file size
1200 pixels wide (MAX)
800 pixels high (MAX)

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////////////

Rules: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage

Send photos to: si daught moderator aht yahoo daught com
by evening New York Time on the dates above.

Please adhere to the following when YOU name YOUR photo.

NAME FORMATS: MACRO_Lisa_Horton_1.jpg
DOORS_Bret_Douglas_2.jpg
FOOD_Dudley_Hanks_3.jpg

Photos will be presented in three separate pages on the SI.

PS: Re-posted due to missing x-posts.

--
The Committee

[Bowser]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 19:34:15 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>http://dl.dropbox.com/u/62816810/SI%20mandate%20list%20-%20RO.pdf
>
>Three themes popped to the top in the runoff, so we'll run three
>overlapping themes:
>
> Mandate DUE DATES
> ------------ ----------
> Macro/Closup 2012.05.27
> Doors 2012.06.03
> Food 2012.06.10
>

Three themes due over three weeks? Yikes...

[SI Committee]

Well, the voters spoke. Good thing the Committee didn't pack them all
into one finish day. For that matter:

Closeup: 3 weeks from start
Doors: 4 weeks
Food: 5 weeks

Funny how we all have time to jaw-jaw but no time to click-click.

--
The Committee

[Pablo]

SI Committee escribió:

> Funny how we all have time to jaw-jaw but no time to click-click.

Which conjures up an image of a large number of "reluctant" photographers.
Chinwaggers with expensive photographic equipment.

You realise you might of course be offending somebody? Or insulting?

--
Pablo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
http://paulc.es/piso/index.php

[Bowser]

Some of us have jobs. And some of us have no macro gear, so I'll have
to improvise.

[SI Committee]

The suggestion was "macro" and we amended that to "macro/closeup" to
accommodate those who don't have a true macro lens.

Also, these mandates offer a lot of "tabletop" and other 'round the
house' photography opportunities.

--
The Committee

[PeterN]

On 5/13/2012 4:02 PM, Bowser wrote:

<snip>

> Some of us have jobs. And some of us have no macro gear, so I'll have
> to improvise.

Not sure what you sue, but some inexpensive suggestions.

Extension tube;
Optical close up lens
enlarge a portion of your image.


--
Peter

[tony cooper]

The mandate is macro or close-up. I've been shooting close-ups for
years - and will submit three to the current SI - and don't own any
macro gear.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[PeterN]

Yes I was simply offering inexpensive alternatives to Bowser, if he
wanted to shoot macro.



--
Peter

[Frank S]

"PeterN" <pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4fb7bb38$0$28413$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...

While we are picking nits: unless the original image is recorded by macro or
in closeup, enlarging a portion of an image is not within the spirit of the
mandate, my view.

--
Frank ess

[Alan Browne]

I'd agree.


--
"A person with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds."
-Samuel Clemens.

[tony cooper]

How do you enlarge a portion of an image? You can crop down to a
portion of an image, but not enlarge it.

As far as I'm concerned, if you have an 18/55 or 18/270 lens (as I
do), you shoot as close as that lens can focus, and you crop down to a
portion of that image...you're legal. Nikon has a "macro" setting,
but it isn't macro and I never use it. Real macro is produced by the
lens used (or the lens and an extension tube) and not by a mode
setting.

[Savageduck]

On 2012-05-19 10:56:31 -0700, Alan Browne

18 inches close enough?


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Alan Browne]

It's all about presentation. Let's use the SI's max landscape
presentation as an example: 1200x800.

When I take a photo for the SI I may crop out part of the frame to
remove distracting stuff or to improve the composition - but the amount
cut away is usually quite low. At worst it might be 25% in one or both
dimensions removed (up to 50% of the surface).

Then re-size for presentation at 1200x800.

So, 50% (or more) of the originally viewfinder framed image remains.

eg: "As I saw it" through the viewfinder.

BUT:

My camera is 6000 x 4000 pixels. If I directly crop a section out
without re-sizing to 1200 x 800 it is the same as a 5x zoom for the
presentation format.

In that case I've removed 96% of the original pixels and "zoomed in"
considerably for a given presentation size.

A mere 4% of the original in-frame image remains "as I saw it" through
the VF.

> As far as I'm concerned, if you have an 18/55 or 18/270 lens (as I
> do), you shoot as close as that lens can focus, and you crop down to a
> portion of that image...you're legal.

I'd propose that the litmus test here is "how well will it print" before
the cropped section was resized for the SI. My example above (4%) would
not print very nicely at 8x5.3 inches.

The guideline should perhaps be something like: before resizing for the
SI, would the cropped section print to 12x8 inches and look good?

(In photoshop one can "View printed size" assuming the screen pitch is
entered and the print pitch is set).

> Nikon has a "macro" setting,
> but it isn't macro and I never use it. Real macro is produced by the
> lens used (or the lens and an extension tube) and not by a mode
> setting.

If the "macro" is an in-camera thing, then it's not macro; if it's a
zoom lens with a "macro" mode then it's not macro but very-closeup.

[Alan Browne]

I think we're looking for a reasonable proportion of the image as seen
through the VF. See my recent (minute ago) reply to Tony.

Note that a close up of a bee and a closeup of an elephant have entirely
different results where distance is concerned.

[PeterN]

It seems to me that the technique is immaterial. If one visualizes the
image prior to capture, why should the lack of equipment matter.

--
Peter

[Frank S]

"PeterN" <pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message

news:4fb83b80$0$31394$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...

Well, sure. Why should there be mandates at all? My principal objection to
some past exhibitions has been that the author didn't seem to acknowledge
the mandate at all, just chose an image, barely identifiable in some cases
as a photograph, and set it before the assembly.

On another but related tack: I'd say that a frame-filling or larger image of
a jet plane in flight or a racing car at speed might well qualify as "close
up" to ordinary mortals with normal fear reflexes.


--
Frank ess

[PeterN]

Probably guilty, though I admit to stretching the subject. For me
photography is a relaxing hobby. The mandate got me out shooting for
about 15 minutes today.

>
> On another but related tack: I'd say that a frame-filling or larger
> image of a jet plane in flight or a racing car at speed might well
> qualify as "close up" to ordinary mortals with normal fear reflexes.

Of course! "Close up" is an imprecise, relative term. What might be far
away for your racing car, would be much too close for shooting an
explosion. (depending of course on the size of the explosion.






--
Peter

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 13:13:21 -0700, "Frank S" <fshe...@san.rr.com>

I wouldn't. The primary theme of the two photos you describe is the
object: the jet plane and the racing car. The primary theme of a
"close-up" is the closeness of the view.

This is a photograph of a watch:
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Table-Top-Photography/i-7GwDdX4/0/XL/2000-144a-XL.jpg

This is a photograph of a close-up of watch parts:

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Table-Top-Photography/i-QbvQgwb/0/XL/2010-03-17-34-XL.jpg