Open up, framing is too tight here!!!

Ouch!

The only possible critic is the cropping that is too tight.

The rest, is really good. The light angle adds 'drama' to the subject.

One suggestion when the subject is white (or light colored) and is a flower, use a light photo brush and check (on another flower) if you can brush out or blow out the pollen on the single large petal... In this case the two long black streaks may not be that easy to reduce unless using post processing.

He was right. What he was telling that I had to break out of the tech mode and recreate myself by reinventing my own style (that had become like his).

Now you are fired was his way of telling me: get out, I just have enough job for myself.

I have found memories of him (he was 67). He specialized in portraits of individual and groups of wealthy families in Lyon (France). All his work was in black and white on an old 5x7 view camera in his studio.

I also cannot remember the number of times when he screamed GET OUT!!! (because of some stupid thing I had done - or HE had done)

By my experience so called pro photographer (including those who study for it) are often not better than the average Joe.

Some look at the price or sophistication and call the holder a pro and dismiss the guy using an old canon or Nikon or whatever.

Free market is survival of the fittest. Sadly in photography, this is not the case.
A person with a good 'personality' can sell his 'work' again and again as his clients do not have contact with one another. The word of mouth does not work in this case.
Licensing photographers is a bad idea as I know more than a few self made photographer capable of using whatever to come out with the 'shot' (or series if during an event). These guys would never be licensed under any scheme as it is not their main occupation or source of income.
The only thing that could work (if there where less suckers born everyday - PT Barnum?) is A serious association of photographers built a database similar to the BBB to which SERIOUS clients could go to and check the rating of their potential photographer. Sadly, Barnum was right.

More importantly thought, what is a photographer?
To me it is primarily a voyeur* and a collector.
What is a photographer to you?
Would your definition support a licensing?

*w/o the sexual innuendos.

I hope he did. Sorry, John.

Notes:
Using a flash ring is good but if you look closely there is a blur on fine detail (if the camera is hand held or the subject moving)

In this case you are dealing with
1) the stability of the camera (and subject motion)
2) the speed of synchronization
3) the duration of the flash (some are noticeably longer than others)

If you have the camera on a heavy tripod and a remote trigger you can get away from a flash ring IF the subject is immobile (or dead)

On your pictures note the exposure...
The first two show a burned out highlight on the back of the bird
The third shows a more natural look.

Macro differs from whom you speak to.

As a rule" Macro is simply the 'art' of taking small objects and make them appear bigger than they are.
Macro has a narrow depth of field (DOF) due to the speed used and for no other reason. Take a flash ring and you can acheive 22/32 even 45 as DOF.
Usually a macro lens is referred by its ration 1:1 means that the size of the object is the same outside as it is on the area of capture.
If you go larger 1:5+ you start to enter the level of micro photography but that is another beast altogether (for which there is no lens but microscopes).

In any case don't give a **** about it, enjoy taking pictures, you do not need the terms and definitions to be really good at it. (You will need to learn timing tho....)

Too me you just show a complete misunderstanding between the two format as if you did know yout history PAINTING was the first to be used to transmit stories and history. One day someone tried something knew to make a painting: he drew a hole in a wal and saw the image projected onto the oposit wall. He painted that (Note that this is taking place right now in California as an experimenet but with light seisitive material.
Neverming this trivia. Photo and old film (on silver were indeed very close as both were (Are since few still use that argentic medium in film)
Video is another beast altogether. You should learn a bit on how the image is recorded onto the magntic or optical media: one line at the time, often (if not always) at a time. Digital photography use the old method: all in one time.
If the DLSR where able to take the same type of system, don't you think they would advertise 29fps as a selling point? That would be an incredible progress for those (like me) who capture small insect in motion or sport events? We are limited to an effective of 3fps (if that much if the camera is capable of updating its setting for every shot)
As to what is best? question of opinion.
For the rest? a question of different technology. So, do not come here and pretend that a video camera takes pictures better than a still camera and that is the point.
Video cameras are really good at what they do, in their specialty field.
Photo cameras are the same: are really good at what they do, in their specialty field.
A hybrid mix the two technology at the expanse of one. Some video camera do take still same as some cameras do take video. Check what they do they do best: The format they were originally made for.
Capture a video still? It is crap from the local junkyard compared to a still taken by a camera.
For me this is the end of this thread, either you understand my statements or you do not. I am not going to lose more of my time explaining the major differences since you simply refuse to understand the meaning of my rebuttal.

Put it differently:
You compare a river to a rock. calls them similar because they are both 'nature' and you can both see them.
Ultimately, if you fall from your rock you usually hurt yourself badly. You fall into the river, if you know how to swim you may survive.
Another thing in common, yet so different.
In my analogy another thing that may escape you, folks like moving thing... The river slowly will erode the rock and will survive, just like folks move more and more toward video and photography will die.

LMAO @ 'photographer credit'. For your info every 'plateau' or scene has a photographer in place. This is the guy who documents the filming and who usually take the pictures used later for the film promotion.

SO basically, for you taking a zillion of interlaced pictures is the same as capturing one still photo that tells the whole story.

Sorry, different medium, different use, different appreciation...

As to training and talent? both are mentioned as one need one or the other or both to realize a 'pro' job. And one can be good at both. A still photographer would have an advantage when moving from one format to the other due to its vision training that pays attention to details that are not that important in video.

As to the 'freeze frame' that was true in the old 'cinema film format' now I am not so sure as manufacturers mainly use interlaced format to gain speed and fool the eye even more. Try to freeze a video (DVD or VHS) or a stream from youtube and you will see two images at different degree. The 'frame' per second so touted most of the time is not a real frame but a partial image. This is why no one had ever seen a great photo taken out of a video (however great the video is)

The line is being blurred with the advent of digital age but the reality is the same.

Video in DLSR? Yuck, another gadget few will use, just like software manufacturers who add new features, bells and whistles no one want or uses. It just make people more for something w/o added value.

One tip....

Purchase a kit that reverses the lens,,,

One thing thought, everything become manual and not all lens manufacturers have this accessory available through a third party.

http://www.digital-photography-school.com/reverse-mounting-your-prime-lenses-for-affordable-macro-photography

Macro accessory....

Use a magnifier with a pair of clamps to keep the subject steady and you can get some surprises....

"Normal macro"


Accessory used


"result"

*Videography and photography are essentially the same thing.*

Let me beg to differ. A video captures an event in it's totality, a photograph, resumes this event in one shot. To to this one has to be really really good or extremely lucky (or cheat).

----

You need talent and training for both. The material means strictly nothing. I have seen extraordinary shots taken with crappy cameras as well as the reverse.

Everyone has a budget, an idea of what we want. This is the starting point to research the 'right stuff'. Brands are useless other than make you pay more for very little difference (and lock you into a system - Who can afford to switch from one brand to another and replace all the investment and training?).

Only thing of importance is the lens that will make all the difference in the satisfaction level. To show my wife I 'loaned her' one of my lens. BIG mistake: she kept it. I purchased another one (better of course).

So, if something fits your budget but you are not quite sure, prepare yourself to spring a bit more and add a worthy lens (that can easily double the price of your system :( )

Anyway, been a 'photographer' since 1979, studied with an 'old master' who taught me all the rules then told me:

Forget everything you have learned and use your mind first, then your eyes and lastly make sure you get lucky.

Then he fired me: I don't need the competition.

He was right.