I like his work -the color and contrast in his photos is getting noticed by people who normally don't like insect images. I also think it's good that someone, anyone, in macro is getting some publicity. You forgot to mention that he was recently published in the October issue of Popular Photography where the magazine printed one of his spider shots as a two page spread. But it's that image that I have the most problems with since it looked "soft": Thomas spends a lot of time in post stacking images to get a shot that's as sharp as possible at 100% pixels. He then crops the photo to get the composition that he wants, instead of composing with the view finder. So the resulting image, when printed, looks soft. Personally I just don't see the point in it...
I am proud of him though -cool that he's getting some much deserved publicity for his work!
As for Macro: All too often I don't think that the discipline is taken seriously because too much emphasis is placed on absolute image sharpness and not enough on light and composition. Poorly composed razor sharp photos are, IMHO, still dragging the mean average down. To see Thomas's work get noticed does send a clear signal that light and composition are important, even in this discipline...
He is indeed very very _very_ good at photomacrography and it really comes down to the quality of light he can produce to get every bit of detail out of the subjects. He's definitely one of the best out there right next to Dalantech, Lord V and Blepharopsis (Igor Siwanowicz).
I'm just stunned how many different species has he managed to find. Would be impossible to get anything near those cookie monster jumping spiders back here in Finland
Dalantech wrote:
As for Macro: All too often I don't think that the discipline is taken seriously because too much emphasis is placed on absolute image sharpness and not enough on light and composition.
No.. macro doesn't get taken seriously because of the subjects themselves. You saw the interviewer's reaction in that video... "BUGS?!?". Not many people find creepy crawlies fascinating.
Dalantech wrote:
As for Macro: All too often I don't think that the discipline is taken seriously because too much emphasis is placed on absolute image sharpness and not enough on light and composition.
n0b0 wrote:
No.. macro doesn't get taken seriously because of the subjects themselves. You saw the interviewer's reaction in that video... "BUGS?!?". Not many people find creepy crawlies fascinating.
From the comments I've received on my photos n0b0 I'd have to say that it depends on how you photograph them. Images that tell a story, or show the critter's "personality", are changing people's perceptions about creepy crawlies...
lol John... just because they like your photos, doesn't mean they like the bugs themselves.
I just got this comment today, "I'd love to do macro work N0b0 but even looking at these pics gives me shivers - i cant imagine having to go anywhere near these critters!!!"
Nothing to do whatsoever with image sharpness or light or composition.
n0b0 wrote:
lol John... just because they like your photos, doesn't mean they like the bugs themselves.
I've had people tell me that they don't like insect photos, but they like the way that I photograph them. Would they scream and freak out if the critter landed on them? Sure. But it's funny how an image can change the way someone feels about a particular subject n0b0, or make them see insects in new ways -and I'm not going to close my mind to the possibilities that exist in the discipline. Maybe I have a different perspective on this whole subject because I sell prints -images that are hanging on people's walls...
And Thomas Shahan is popular enough to get a TV interview. Perhaps his perspective on cropping and focus stacking works just fine without you trying to convince him otherwise eh?
n0b0 wrote:
And Thomas Shahan is popular enough to get a TV interview. Perhaps his perspective on cropping and focus stacking works just fine without you trying to convince him otherwise eh?
You got me
Thomas and I were having a Flickr mail conversation recently, before Tom started this thread, and we were talking about technique. He thinks I'm more serious about macro than he is because I don't crop. I don't do it because I make large prints, and because I license my photos through a stock agency (most of them don't like cropped photos). The funny thing n0b0 is that if Thomas were posting here most of the people who commented on his images would tell him that his photos are too saturated, or his light is too warm...
Some of them are a bit oversaturated for me but he makes a great use of complimentary colours. I think that's what makes his photos stand out more than anything. Sharpness, lighting and composition aren't the only important factors. Great use of Colours is also very important.
n0b0 wrote:
And Thomas Shahan is popular enough to get a TV interview. Perhaps his perspective on cropping and focus stacking works just fine without you trying to convince him otherwise eh?
I agree with your perspective, and have been a fan of Thomas since my earliest days of trying to learn something about macro photography.
Below is an excerpt from his recent interview that raises another issue - many, perhaps most macro bug shooters take photos of bugs not only for aesthetic purposes, but also to document and share our enjoyment of bug appearances and behavior as well as to (photographically) capture an occasional rare species. One of the reasons, in my personal opinion, for Tom's invitation to the TV show is related to peoples' fascination with bugs, if presented as Tom does. Take a look at Tom's interview and the excerpt below. I don't share this opinion entirely but I think I understand what Tom is getting at, especially re bug photography.
"What is one impression you hope the viewer takes away from your photographs?"
"That they benefit and learn from them. I don’t consider photography art. I’m not creating beauty, I’m just recording and translating what is beautiful. Much of my photography is of details and subjects not visible to the human eye. I want to express and reveal to others the abundant, amazing world of arthropods and science."
Another related and perhaps even more important issue - aesthetic preferences are VERY personal, and VERY subjective, by definition. One of us may prefer French Impressionist art, while another person may prefer an old master from a medieval art school of thought. One of us may prefer close-up high-mag bug faces, while another may prefer a smaller image of the whole bug in a natural setting of some sort.
In view of the multiple purposes and the subjectivity of when a photo has proper color, composition, lighting, how does it make sense for any of us (including dalantech, of course) to try and impose their position on the rest of us?
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, for most macro photographers, macro photography is simply an enjoyable hobby for a tiny minority of people, and this and other photo sharing forums only work if we share our efforts in peace, only making (constructive) criticisms when requested or when appropriate. Criticisms that mostly attempt to impose one's personal aesthetics, techniques, or motivations on others are usually perceived as bad manners and are not welcome, especially if expressed in what appears to be an unfriendly or repetitive manner.
Just my two cents. I hope my comments are of interest and helpful.
DQE1.0 wrote:
In view of the multiple purposes and the subjectivity of when a photo has proper color, composition, lighting, how does it make sense for any of us (including dalantech, of course) to try and impose their position on the rest of us?
I'm beginning to think that I could use a thousand of these ---> and some people wouldn't see them. I never really argue against technique, only to say that no one technique is any more right or wrong than another. So when I was talking about Thomas's cropping (both here and in my emails with him) it was just to point out the potential pitfalls of using the cropping tool in post. It's simple math: The more pixels you cut out of a photo the less you have. No big deal if all you do is resize for the web and view your work on a computer screen. But send those crops to a printer and you'll soon realize why I don't use the cropping tool to alter the composition of my images. It's an even bigger pitfall if one day you want to use your photos for stock and no one will take them because they are cropped. I know a couple of shooters who have lost years of work when they started shooting for stock because they believed that cropping was a normal part of post processing...
If someone crops or not makes no difference to me -it's their portfolio...
Dalantech wrote:
It's simple math: The more pixels you cut out of a photo the less you have.
Until pixel density levels reach a point where it doesn't matter how much you crop, as long as its in moderation. The 7D is a good example and the 50D, 5DII, 1DsIII, 1DIV, D3x, a700 are a few others I myself do not own an MP-E so the only way for me to get down past 1:1 is via TC+tubes...and of course cropping which isn't all too much--mainly for composition.
Dalantech wrote:
Again: If you crop I do not care -it's your portfolio...
Personally I'm not a natural when it comes to composition -I need to practice. The only way to get that practice is with the view finder...
Didn't mean for that to come off as any type of attack, John I was just responding to the 'argument' of pixel loss and effective print size. Thomas' images are great, but I feel some have lost a lot of fine detail and sharpness due to making large crops--a shame really since they look very good small.
