Macro submissions..Intimidation by ‘Goggle eyes and umpteen legs’

[Dave in Wales]

There are superb macro shots in the Macro/CU section, we all have to agree on that.

But year upon year the ‘same-ol-same-ol’ very similar staggering shots of bug eyed monsters gets wheeled out.

As good as they undoubtedly are….’we have seen them all before in one form or another’.

There are very few micro/macro/CU shots of anything else, hence my question……. Are we being intimidated by shots of ‘Goggle eyes and umpteen legs’ ….?

Do we feel reluctant to post a macro shot because it’s not an insect/bug.

'Talk Photography' must have a lot of macro/CU photographers who shoot other stuff….c’mon lets see em then.
Don't be put off because it hasn't got ‘Goggle eyes and umpteen legs'

Some extreme bellows stuff would be good as well.

 

[simon ess]

We've had this discussion before.

The simple answer is...post some shots.

Edit to add...

I basically agree with you that it would be good to see stuff other than bugs, but I'm as guilty as the next person.

 

[Nod]

There's nothing very little that hasn't been (please excuse the unavoidable pun) shot to death in almost every genre. Be it a kingfisher emerging with a stickleback, a car sliding sideways, a fluffy jet fighter, a reflected mountain etc.. Obviously there are different levels of competence showing in some of the shots as well as marginally different poses from the subjects but nothing ground-breaking and/or innovative.

 

[StewartR]

I'm not a macro specialist and I don't post macro photos here. But I may have a small insight to offer.

Allow me to set the scene. A couple of years ago we had a 'photo book' challenge at our camera club. We had a load of vouchers to do bog standard 26-page 6" square softback photo books for about £5 each, and the challenge was to put one together on a theme of our choosing. They were judged on the quality of the photography, the coherence of the theme, and the design of the book.

My idea was to present a series of high-magnification photos of common household objects taken with a Canon MP-E 65mm lens. (Hey, no point owing a hire business if you don't get to play with the toys!) By the time they were printed, they were typically 40-60x actual size.

And here's the insight: man-made objects typically don't have much fine detail. Obviously things like silicon chips do, but for most manufactured objects there don't seem to be many interesting features smaller than about 10 microns. By contrast, bugs and other creations of nature often have moving parts which are smaller than that and are hugely detailed on all scales. I would venture to suggest that bugs are seen as "interesting" for macro photographers, not just because of the challenge of finding them and photographing them, but because they have a level of fine details which manufactured objects typically lack.


PS If you're interested, I got second place and you can see the images here.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/...073741826.100000457633989&type=1&l=d5087a6025

They're hosted on Facebook but you don't need to he a FB user to see the album. Have fun guessing what they are, and the answers are at the end.

 

[Nod]

Point of (pedantic!) order, Stewart - the "cabbage" is actually a romanesco cauliflower (aka romanesque broccoli.)

 

[TimmyG]

And here's the insight: man-made objects typically don't have much fine detail. Obviously things like silicon chips do, but for most manufactured objects there don't seem to be many interesting features smaller than about 10 microns. By contrast, bugs and other creations of nature often have moving parts which are smaller than that and are hugely detailed on all scales. I would venture to suggest that bugs are seen as "interesting" for macro photographers, not just because of the challenge of finding them and photographing them, but because they have a level of fine details which manufactured objects typically lack.

Quite right Stewart!

OP have a read through this thread. It's quite long-winded and argumentative in places, but it's a fun read:
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/why-are-all-macro-shots-in-here-of-insects.562323/

Here was my conclusion:

Why are all Macro shots in here of insects?

 

[SteveSc]

And here's the insight: man-made objects typically don't have much fine detail. Obviously things like silicon chips do, but for most manufactured objects there don't seem to be many interesting features smaller than about 10 microns. By contrast, bugs and other creations of nature often have moving parts which are smaller than that and are hugely detailed on all scales. I would venture to suggest that bugs are seen as "interesting" for macro photographers, not just because of the challenge of finding them and photographing them, but because they have a level of fine details which manufactured objects typically lack..

I agree with Stewart, particularly when you are talking about 1;1 macro shots or more magnified.

I am a member of a flickr group called macro mondays where they have a theme each week and you rarely get many insect shots, however, a lot of the photos are not true macro but more close up. The thing for me that really stands out with man made objects in macro/close up photos, is that the creativity of the lighting and composure plays a huge part in the picture, otherwise they often look like a documentary shot of an object.

I've posted a couple of non insect macro's since I've been on this forum and had some good feedback and hope to do some more in the future.