Another hydrangea petal skeleton

[DanK]

As Manfred pointed out, macro is one genre that's still possible. Unfortunately, we don't have a lot around yet--most of the few flowers that came out already were eaten by rabbits, there aren't yet many bugs, and most of the winter vestiges of last season are gone or ruined. However, I've been finding a few bits and pieces here. Here is one I did yesterday. It's a composite of 13 images, done with Zerene DMap but with some halo touch--ups from PMax.

C&C welcome, as always

[Wavelength]

Excellent image

[billtils]

... macro is one genre that's still possible...

Indeed it is Dan, but a picky purist would say this is a close up and not a macro. Notwithstanding that puritanical view, this is a superb image. However, and to keep the "macro" theme going, from the title I was expecting to see an image that featured just one petal ...

[DanK]

Bill,

Thanks. True enough. The traditional definition is at least 1:1. I should have been more careful with the title.

This reflects not just carelessness; it reflects the evolution of my photography. When I was learning macro, I kept pushing to higher magnifications--partly to master the skills, and partly to see what things look like at ever higher magnifications. However, my perspective gradually changed as I mastered the skills. Now, when I find something like that twig, I actually don't think about magnification at all. I just try to envision what will make an image that I find pleasing. Often, I find that what I want is less than 1:1. I haven't measured, but I'm guessing that a lot of my flower photos are between 3:1 and 1:1. I do know that I haven't added extension tubes in doing flower shots for quite some time, so I haven't gone above 1:1. On the other hand, I have found that 1:1 is a little low for bugs, and when I go bug-hunting, I normally have a 36mm extension tube on the camera.

In this case, I think I will follow your suggestion and play with higher-magnification shots of the azalea flowers. When I was first trying macro years ago, I did a shot of three overlapping azalea flowers at about 1:1, but I can't easily find it now, and it wasn't well done. I may also go back to my "second tier" galleries. In an effort to keep my website clean, I have been culling a great deal, and many of the culls go into private galleries. I have a large number of higher-magnification flower photos in one of them. Perhaps I should look them over again.

Dan

[billtils]

...True enough. The traditional definition is at least 1:1. I should have been more careful with the title...

Dan

The main aim of my post was to express my admiration for the image as posted, then to try and prompt you to indeed do a close-up of one of the leaves, just out of curiosity to see how it turned out.

However, your reply on "macro" did get me thinking, as I've never liked the restrictive 1:1 definition, and am more happy with "macro" being synonymous with "close-up" - I wonder how many images posted or entered in competitions as "macro" are 1:1?

If we go down the "a word means what people want it to mean" road, the most common definition that turned up in a Web search was its use in computing followed by the more general "large".

Bottom line: please keep taking and sharing your macro/close-up images!

[DanK]

Bill,

Many thanks.

Your note got me thinking. I hadn't fully realize how far my work had evolved (drifted?) away from true macro. Worth rethinking a bit.

My goal is to create things that satisfy me, but of course, I find it very gratifying when what I do is well received. Thinking back over the last several months, these not-quite-macro photos of flowers and dessicated flowers have been well received. I can only guess at the reasons for people's reactions, but I think there may be an attraction to being close enough to show things in a novel light but far enough away that the flower is still recognizable.

I've begun to experiment with series that start with an entire flower or two and zoom in to a true macro. I've posted parts of one of those here before. I'll post the whole series below. I've gotten a lot of responses to these, but almost to a one, the responses have been to individual images, not the series. In this case, it's the true macro that has been received best.

Thanks again

Dan

[billtils]

Thanks Dan. I like the middle one best

[DanK]

Thanks. You and one very artistic friend of mine, who likes the color contrast from the little bit of green.

My inspiration for this was some fuchsia shots posted several years ago by Brian Valentine ("Lord V), a truly superb macro photographer who is very generous in sharing his expertise. You can check out his photos here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/. Some of his instructional links from quite some time ago can be found here: https://dgrin.com/discussion/50752/b...t-in-residence

[billtils]

Thanks. You and one very artistic friend of mine, who likes the color contrast from the little bit of green.

Didn't know I was being artistic, but I did like the green . Thanks for the links too - nice bees bugs and camellias. The instructional material is on the menu for tomorrow, but I did take a sneak peak and like his definition of "macro".

Bill

[pschlute]

Lovely lighting.