Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

I spent 2-hours this morning at El Dorado Nature Center. Not many macro subjects out-&-about.

A sleeping Hover fly on Blue-Eyed grass, and a Western Honeybee on Oak blossoms.

ShooterOR

Nice job, Nikonian, especially #2.

tinosa Loc: Grand Rapids Michigan

Excellent control of limited DOF !

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Hello Nikonian, When will you comment on my macro images? Remember put up or shut up? Well, I put up now its your turn. Times a wasting.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

You are quite negatively opinionated about my macro-photography, and you expect to read the same from me. For some reason, you think this is a contest.

Better than my opinion, lets allow others to view both of our macro-photography, side-by-side. You start a new thread entitled "Silver/Nikonian72 Challenge", post only (1) macro, and I will post one (1) macro as close to your subject as possible. Please check the box entitled "(store original)" so fine detail can be appreciated. We will ask HedgeHog members to post pros & cons of both images.

Then I will start another thread entitled "Nikonian72/Silver Challenge", post one (1) macro subject of my choice, and you post one (1) macro as similar to subject as possible. Again, we will ask HedgeHog members to post pros & cons of both images.

This is a true macro-photography forum. Therefore, only 1:1 (life-size) or greater magnification to be submitted. Close-up photos (images less than 1:1 magnification, or less than life-size), are not a part of this challenge. Please check the box entitled "(store original)" so fine detail can be appreciated.

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Ha, you are really funny! You said "put up or shut up". So I put up and you never commented on what I posted. Thats all I want. I dont need contests, just one mans opinion. After all it was your challenge. So?

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

So do it again. Only this time, one image per thread, not ten. General comment only are possible with multi-image posts. And crop, or don't crop, but macro images only, no close-up images, like my bee above.

Technically my bee image above is really a close-up, and should have been cropped to life-size to qualify as a macro, like this:

Western Honeybee on Scrub Oak blossoms

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Ha Ha, you are really funny. You just will not commit to an opinion or comment about the images I posted. Well, I give up. You win. At least I have the satisfaction that I did " put up or shut up" as you wanted. Ok, I put up and now I will shut up. Sorry that I have been a thorn in your side. As a post scrip, you could send me a personal note, I wont tell anybody, I promise. One last thought, Your bee photo is a little soft.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Again, you post an opinion without an example of how a true digital macro should look.

The pictures you posted months ago were mainly contrasty close-up photographs that you digitally copied from slides (per you posted explanation at that time). None were original digital images. http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-8340-1.html

Still waiting for you to "put-up" original, digital macro images with Efix info, not scans of 15-year old slide.

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Once again you have avoided the subject. Macro is macro, what difference does it make weather an image is from film or digital, what nonsense. So there not digital, so what. In the original post there was nothing mentioned as to weather the images had to be digital so I posted the images that I had. Quite frankly I have not shot any insects since I purchased my digital equipment but that dosent mean that the images I posted were not valid. Another thing, you mentioned, close up, in other words macro or has the meaning of macro changed over the past day or two. The images were shot with a Pentax film camera, an LX body using a Pentax 100 and 200 macro lens. How silly you are being now. Macro is macro. The images were my original macro images, nobody else's. This is getting nuttier and nuttier. So I will bow down to your opinions and submit to your requirements and you no longer have to comment about my images. Ok your right, I illegally posted unlawful macro images I shot on film, how dreadful. They were too contrasty and they were scanned from slides. I am so guilty of this infraction. What should my punishment be, maybe no photographing insects for a year? I also created close up images that arnt macro images, how dreadful. Well, Im off to stand in the corner. Its been fun. Also your images are not soft I guess.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Blah, blah, blah.

I already said your 15-year old close-up images were contrasty, which I believe is a result of copying from slide to digital. I am trying to give you an opportunity to provide true macro images where insect detail (antennae, legs, wing edges, etc.) is preserved, instead of lost in a dark background.

99.9% of UHH members shoot only digital. To show us how your macro technique is still relevant, go shoot some true macros with your digital camera.

The accepted photographic definition of macro as 1:1 (life-size) up to 10:1 (10x life-size), which is the accepted threshold of micro-photography. Less than life-size is close-up photography. Read the True Macro-Photography Forum Introduction: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-22447-1.html

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

I guess that you dont know that a true macro lens is a flat field lens. It doesnt matter if the reproductions are 1:1 or whatever. Quite a few of my images were 1:1. I never crop my images as you do so your images are no where macro according to your definition, you shoot a large image and crop them down and the result is a soft image. I on the other hand shoot to have a final image at the time of shooting, I would never crop an image down. One of my images is a 1:1 image of a butterfly, a portrait of a butterfly to be sure. I guess that this image doesnt qualify for you. Its not true that this site is based on only digital, there are many people that shoot film. You choose what satisfies yourself. My images are contrasty, yes but my images have depth and great sharpness and detail. I dont manipulate my images at all, I just scan them the way they are. I think that you are just so used to soft images. I know all about what macro photography is, and I have been doing macro photography for a long time. I shoot jewelry and products professionally and all of my work is done with macro lenses. Well, I guess that you are the macro expert so I am done. I dont feel that I have to shoot anything to prove to you that I can do macro photography, its just nonsense. One last thing, the images of the pygmy blue butterflies are actually more then 1:1, these butterflies are the size of a dime and the images look great to me.

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

I looked at the macro description listed here and it clearly says digital or film. Also it does not mention anything about a flat field lens.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

You are correct! Film is acceptable. Close-up photography, less than true macro, less than 1:1 (life-size) is not, no matter what lens you use.

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

I suggest that you take a good look at some of my images. As I specified the Pygmy Copper Blue butterflies are the size of a dime. The portrait of the butterfly is also a reproduction of at least 1:1. I am surprised that an expert like yourself cant see that fact.