A discussion forum - and more - for users of Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras.
Forestry + Flower's = Nearly MacroModerators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent. Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature. Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread. Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Previous topic • Next topic
5 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Forestry + Flower's = Nearly Macro
G'day All,
I was out in the forestry near Canberra today, and took quite a few (what I consider to be) good photos. I really liked this one: 
The other macros can be seen at http://photos.ozonejunkie.com/v/macro/. Please critique away, I would love to hone my macro skills more. Thanks Tristan Last edited by ozonejunkie on Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Canon User
Web: http://www.ozonejunkie.com/ Gallery: http://photos.ozonejunkie.com
Tristan an interesting set of pics, although I believe you should have posted 0367 which has more impact and great OOF. I would deem these pics as not being macro - you really need to get much closer to the 1:1 situation.
 Chris
-------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
Yes, I did think that 0359 & 0367 were pushing the defintion a bit.
However, the other two I thought would have fitted. 
Thanks for the comments, Tristan Canon User
Web: http://www.ozonejunkie.com/ Gallery: http://photos.ozonejunkie.com
Tristan - although there is some dispute to the actual definitions, it is normally stated that macro is 1:1 - in other words the image on the sensor is the actual size of the object being photographed. Micro is when you go to greater magnification.
In the old days, prior to misleading marketing, shots that showed a smaller image on film than the real thing would have been called close-ups. BTW I did like your shots Chris
-------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
Previous topic • Next topic
5 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|
