n0b0 wrote:
That's very sharp for a 4x John, what aperture did you use?
F8, but that's only one small piece of the puzzle. I slowly turned that flower until I saw a magic angle that would allow me to get a lot of the scene in focus. I've got several good frames, but I liked the one I posted best. I'll save the rest of them for this winter
Whoops almost missed this one John. My 2cents for what it is worth.....Wonderful eye detail. Nice and different angle you chose; I like the profile against the black bg. Strictly a personal opinion, while respecting how hard it is to get a shot like this, I'm just not wild about the aesthetics of this fly. Almost like a little too much information in this shot, a little too close to work for me. I like your bees better. Guess I am in just a real honest mood tonight.
@ Henry: No one gets points for difficulty -this is macro and not gymnastics Only the final image counts, and IMHO from a standpoint of composition and lighting I did pretty good on this one (even better if the critter was about .5mm higher and to the left in the frame). When you said "too close to work" does that mean that you deal with flies in your day job? If so any ID on this one?
John, I think he meant that this level of magnification doesn't work for him and that he would prefer it if it was shot with lower level of magnification.
n0b0 wrote:
John, I think he meant that this level of magnification doesn't work for him and that he would prefer it if it was shot with lower level of magnification.
OK -that makes sense
Been there, done that, got the lower mag shot and wanted to push myself to see if I could pull off a composition at 4x
Henry Hawk wrote:
Almost like a little too much information in this shot...
You mean it's a single frame image that's too sharp and has too much detail?! *gasp* Careful Henry, the focus stacking police will be knocking down your door!
n0b0 wrote:
John, I think he meant that this level of magnification doesn't work for him and that he would prefer it if it was shot with lower level of magnification.
What N0b0 said. Just a personal POV. IMHO the shot is technically very well done and I think you do get points, lots of them, for the difficulty is capturing the image. Don'y you think difficulty counts? I do. That is something that I enjoy most about macro, first finding the subject, stalking it, learning about the behavior, then attempting to get the light, comp and clarity all to come together in an image that I like. I think it is lots of fun! lol at your focus stacking comment, though my images could use a little focus stacking now and then. I've not tried it.
Henry Hawk wrote:
Don'y you think difficulty counts? I do. That is something that I enjoy most about macro, first finding the subject, stalking it, learning about the behavior, then attempting to get the light, comp and clarity all to come together in an image that I like.
You listed all of the reasons why I took that shot
But difficulty, to the casual observer, does not count -only the final image matters...
Hey John~I feel sucked into this conversation. lol! Anyway nice that we are on the same page with motivation and inspiration, as I think and hope that most of us macro photogs are. I still think that difficulty counts to the casual observer~don't you just love it when someone (casual observer) says, "How did you GET that shot?" **amazed look, open mouth in disbelief** I think after looking at the great images in this forum (hate to admit this) everyday, we perhaps lose sight of what wows the general public. I'm referrring to the final image of course which is the only thing that truly matters. I know for myself, I look at some of the shots here and say to myself (or out loud) Damn! How did he/she get that? Wish I could find one of those (insert subject) around here.
I agree with you Henry, but maybe I should say it a different way...
The difficulty of taking the shot will not compensate for poor composition.
I can take the sharpest photo of the most difficult critter on the planet to get close to but if the composition is off then at the end of the day it's still a poorly composed image. Once the "Wow! factor" of shooting a subject at high mag fades there has to be something about the image that holds the viewer's attention and the composition will make the difference between someone moving on to the next image and that same person coming back to a photo for a second or third look.
Within the macro community there is a certain degree of respect due to the difficulty in taking a photo, but if you get too caught up in it then one of two things can happen: You'll start shooting for a very limited audience, maybe only paying attention to the technical aspects and not the compositional ones. In time the only people who might appreciate what you're doing are other macro shooters -to other photographers and the general public your work will look no better than someone's vacation point and shoot snapshots...
The other pitfall is getting too caught up in technique. The last time I tried to discuss some of these issues here I caught a lot of grief, with people accusing me of arguing against their technique when all I was really trying to do was clamp down on the pixel peeping. For people to accuse me of thinking that my technique is best is pretty funny, considering the fact that I don't have any fixed technique that I shoot with. I keep my style as loose as possible so I can let the subject dictate how I'm going to approach it. By not getting locked into a rigid style I can shoot in all weather conditions except rain and at all times of the day. The image at the top of this thread is a prime example of being able to adapt to the critter and the situation. How many times have you been told that the best time to shoot is when there is little to no wind? The trick I used to get a lot of my recent shots works best when the wind is at its worst...
Composition is king in every photographic discipline -macro is no exception. In the not so distant future the only thing that's going to separate good macro photos from bad ones is the composition -and when I say composition I'm including light along with it since light is a compositional tool...
That's a good shot John - nice composition, good detail. Lighting is a fraction harsh, but that's not always avoidable (and I'm the last to talk about lighting lol). Good job at 4:1.
melkor wrote:
That's a good shot John - nice composition, good detail. Lighting is a fraction harsh, but that's not always avoidable (and I'm the last to talk about lighting lol). Good job at 4:1.
Dave
Thanks Dave
The light is about as dead on as I can get it for a scene like that and using the MT-24EX.
