Camperjim wrote:
Time to move to a different area? Anyway, nice capture. Have you considered vertical with 90 degree rotation to the left?
Thanks Jim. As a matter of fact I did consider rotating the image 90 degree counter-clockwise, but i decided to leave as it was. My thinking behind that decision was that it would create more tension and give the bug a more ominous character. What do you think?
Not sure what you are referring to with your question. Different photography area?
I do prefer the rotated version. Bug is still plenty weird.
Got you. Thanks
I looked up the bug and I found out that this is a Bush Katydid in a nymph form. It will become adult this summer and it would look like a cricket (sort of). It can sure jump with those back legs
You can do it however you want but the thing about bugs and macro is that the ones that are really successful are extremely close and you can see every detail.
You can do it however you want but the thing about bugs and macro is that the ones that are really successful are extremely close and you can see every detail.
Thanks for stopping by, commenting and offering suggestions, Carlosmcse. Welcome to the Critique Forum.
First of all I would like to offer my congratulations to you. I have read all your comments in this Forum and you seem to really know how to offer your critique: always in a very agreeable and constructive tone. Well done!
About the white balance, I stopped using that tool many years ago. See, I am more concerned that my colors work, rather than being correct. I am more concerned of how the light balances in the image more than how correctly the camera actually recorded. However I appreciate your suggestion and be sure that it will be taken into the proper consideration
As far as your suggested crop is concerned, sorry, but if I had taken the picture as depicted in your re-work it would have already be in my trash can.
The reason being the amputation of the bug's feet and of the long antennas which are a very peculiar characteristic of the subject. I don't know your knowledge of wildlife photography, but amputations of parts of the subject is a no-no. In addition looks like the subject is smashing his face against the frame and overall the subject seem to constrict inside the frame. Not my cup of tea, but I understand what you are saying and I appreciate it.
Thanks again for your contribution.
Shasoc wrote:
Thanks for stopping by, commenting and offering suggestions, Carlosmcse. Welcome to the Critique Forum.
First of all I would like to offer my congratulations to you. I have read all your comments in this Forum and you seem to really know how to offer your critique: always in a very agreeable and constructive tone. Well done!
About the white balance, I stopped using that tool many years ago. See, I am more concerned that my colors work, rather than being correct. I am more concerned of how the light balances in the image more than how correctly the camera actually recorded. However I appreciate your suggestion and be sure that it will be taken into the proper consideration
As far as your suggested crop is concerned, sorry, but if I had taken the picture as depicted in your re-work it would have already be in my trash can.
The reason being the amputation of the bug's feet and of the long antennas which are a very peculiar characteristic of the subject. I don't know your knowledge of wildlife photography, but amputations of parts of the subject is a no-no. In addition looks like the subject is smashing his face against the frame and overall the subject seem to constrict inside the frame. Not my cup of tea, but I understand what you are saying and I appreciate it.
Thanks again for your contribution.
You don’t need to cut anything off. As I said the crop is up to you. But as it is now there’s a lot of dead space in your photo. That’s my critique. And it’s also too cold/blue.
Take it or leave it.
Not sure if you’re aware but professional macro photographers that photograph bugs cut off parts of bugs all the time. Like I said before the most successful shots are very close.
carlosmcse wrote:
You don’t need to cut anything off. As I said the crop is up to you. But as it is now there’s a lot of dead space in your photo. That’s my critique. And it’s also too cold/blue.
Take it or leave it.
Not sure if you’re aware but professional macro photographers that photograph bugs cut off parts of bugs all the time. Like I said before the most successful shots are very close.
Thanks for the suggestions about macro photography, but I have no interest in macro photography.
Who said anything about macro photography, anyway? Where did you get that idea from?
My image was taken with a 100-400 mm. (a lens not particularly suited for macro) and it doesn't really fit a technical definition of macro, but it is a close-up photograph nevertheless.
I don't do macro and as I said I am not interested in it.
Shasoc wrote:
Thanks for the suggestions about macro photography, but I have no interest in macro photography.
Who said anything about macro photography, anyway? Where did you get that idea from?
My image was taken with a 100-400 mm.
Perhaps you didn’t read what I posted thoroughly or carefully.
Yes it is obvious that photo was taken with a zoom. Like i said it is figuratively and literally very FAR from being a good picture of a small bug. So I repeat. Pictures of small bugs, the most successful ones, are macro photos.
Never in my life have a seen a photo of a tiny bug taken with a zoom lens that worked aside from just being a snapshot of a bug someplace.
If the concept was “a bug on a leaf some place” then mission accomplished I guess. 🤷🏻♂️
Poor bird BTW. Throw that one in the trash. No feet or tail. Terrible.
Interesting critter. Not one I've seen before, so the whole (vs. true macro) presents introductory.
Taking a few different cues ...
WB does seem cool. Antennae are assumed black. One antennae is definitely blue, the other appears "black", but since it is clipped at 0,0,0 ... that can be a false sense of hue if the luminance is so low. Cross checking the other one offers a different read on the illuminating light.
Some, crop and rotation. Created a need for some BG fill, so take that with a grain of salt, as my fill skills aren't up to Socrate's level of capability.
As to final color rendering ... S&P to taste if a cooler / warmer vibe is desired.
We are all just kidding at this point. This is going to the ridiculous 😅
Although tiny bugs with zoom lenses can be a whole new category. After all it’s our art! There are no right or wrong decisions. And all that stuff people like to hear 😄
You look up “macro photography” is basically all flowers and bugs, with the occasional appearance of a small lizard of some sort.
The thing about Macro is that tiny things appear many times their size so we can see all the glorious details. And this is what’s missing in this shot. It’s a picture of a bug on a leaf. If someone took a photo of this tiny frog with a zoom lens it would’ve been just a picture of a little frog, but because it’s a macro shot it’s so close up that it transforms into something else. The lens is probably almost touching the frog. Like you are an ant and you’re looking at the world from a whole new perspective.
RustyBug wrote:
Interesting critter. Not one I've seen before, so the whole (vs. true macro) presents introductory.
Taking a few different cues ...
WB does seem cool. Antennae are assumed black. One antennae is definitely blue, the other appears "black", but since it is clipped at 0,0,0 ... that can be a false sense of hue if the luminance is so low. Cross checking the other one offers a different read on the illuminating light.
Some, crop and rotation. Created a need for some BG fill, so take that with a grain of salt, as my fill skills aren't up to Socrate's level of capability.
As to final color rendering ... S&P to taste if a cooler / warmer vibe is desired....Show more →
This is a much better crop. And I was right again. It needs a crop. It begs to be up close (Macro).
If you had said something like, I think the reworked crop improves it in the direction you prefer, that's agreeing with others. When you make the kind of a statement you did, you are telling the whole world that you agree with yourself, and it moves from condescending to narcisistic. To be clear ... I'm not saying you are condescending and narcisistic ... just it reads that way. Bold and convicted ... yup, we can all be that to a degree, at any given time. But, when the bark is perpetually ... "I'm always right", it wears thin ... quickly.
The group here values the group contribution. We all are very opinionated at times, and those can vary significantly. But, the regard for our members is pretty high. Nothing to prove here ... except that you want to help. Telling folks they are wrong and you are right on every other thread, in one form or another sends the group a message. I / we tend to understand that folks coming new to this group from other realms may feel they have to prove themselves by "might or right". The thing is ... it just isn't necessary with this group. I'm sure you'll come to figure that out.
The PC Forum has had a longstanding history of being collaborative. Sometimes, new folks take a few beats to catch on to that. It sounds like you have value to contribute to the Forum ... btw, would like to see your Leica selected work. Other members of the PC Forum have had their works reach that accolade, as well. Do share.
BTW ... what name would you like for us to call you. We are mostly on a first name basis with one another around here.
What do you think?
