hacked - darinwc
Allowing Ads
For the record I would consider westons peper as too large to be considered a macro, but others may differ.
1. Insects, which are are very exotic when viewed up close but otherwise ordinary.[...]In fact I challenge readers to find any macro photo which would be considered more artistic than technically difficult.
I am not sure what fits this category of "artistic" - black and white, barn doors? What you are saying about insect photography could be applicable to any wildlife photography - do you find any wildlife photography done in color "artistic."
I think the distinction is quite clear - technical and scientific macro work calls for the maximum amount of factual information in a picture, which in turn calls for high sharpness, deep focus and flat lighting (as does technical photography of any kind).
I thought the first post in this thread was talking about "macro photography" and whether it can be artistic - how does "technical and scientific macro work" come into this? Did I misunderstand the subject under discussion?
-Anupam
just got a Kiron 105mm f/2.8
I've tried to capture some abstract floral shots...here are 3 images of a Datura plant from bud stage to seed pod.
No, incompetence passed off as art.<snip> So, can this be considered artistic macro?
Anyone have examples of what they would consider artistic macro photography?
Would (there was a url link here which no longer exists) qualify?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?