Why are all Macro shots in here of insects?

Pookeyhead

Pookeyhead

Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,746
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
As per title. I was given a Nikkor 60mm Macro lens this weekend, as the owner no longer wanted it - it was faulty. I've repaired it, and was testing it, and just thought I'd see how images from it compare to others taken with similar equipment, and after clicking on thread after thread, after thread... soon realised that everyone in here who uses macro, seems to shoot insects.

Why?

Surely there's other stuff on this planet that's interesting close up?
 
Last edited:
Sorry no idea why it posted multiple times :(
 
Last edited:
:( and then it deleted them all!!!!!

I said I do shoot macros but hardly ever take insects, which is one reason I never share on here ;)
 
Last edited:
This is because you are looking in the end of the bug season so the abundance of bugs (since spring) mean the majority will shoot them. Also with the amount of varied bugs out there, there is a inherent beauty in them so its a challenge to find and shoot as many species as possible plus they move and are dynamic unlike inanimate objects.

But come the winter months you will see more artistic stuff that you clearly want to see.
 
tracybradbury said:
:( and then it deleted them all!!!!!

I said I do shoot macros but hardly ever take insects, which is one reason I never share on here ;)
Click to expand...

A very strange view have you tried posting in the section you might just be surprised. o_O

I will say its the friendliest place on TP, and if most of us shoot bugs means we can't do other macro or enjoy other macro is simply ridiculous.
 
Tintin124 said:
I will say its the friendliest place on TP, and if most of us shoot bugs means we can't do other macro or enjoy other macro is simply ridiculous.
Click to expand...

If you can, and do shoot other stuff.. where is it? I clicked on every post in the first 2 pages and saw nothing but bugs... with the occasional flower here and there.

I merely asked why.

Tintin124 said:
This is because you are looking in the end of the bug season so the abundance of bugs (since spring) mean the majority will shoot them. Also with the amount of varied bugs out there, there is a inherent beauty in them so its a challenge to find and shoot as many species as possible plus they move and are dynamic unlike inanimate objects.
Click to expand...

So from spring to autumn... bugs. Gotcha. I'll avoid that forum between those times then :) Seen one... seen 'em all... unless you're actually interested in bugs, but then the photography seems to play second fiddle a bit.
 
Last edited:
You asked Why and I answered...

Avoid it as you wish but WHY don't you post your stuff at all times then give the section something different be the exception and not the rule you might find you encourage others.

As for the photography comment you need to understand that this forum is not just for Pro's and there are lots of learners in the Macro section, and if you are specifically aiming it at me then please comment on any threads and it will be well received as i'm always looking to improve.

No Bugs.... PAGE 1
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/autum-and-winter-a-thread-for-all.558158/
 
Last edited:
Ok.. no bugs there.... just the flowers they would have been sat on if it was bug season... so Bugs in summer.... flowers in winter. Gotcha.


Tintin124 said:
Avoid it as you wish but WHY don't you post your stuff at all times then give the section something different be the exception and not the rule you might find you encourage others.
Click to expand...

My sum total of Macro images = 1. I just wanted to see how similar equipment performs. If I have a call for Macro, I'll shoot something, and post it. I'll post up the test image then.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Ok.. no bugs there.... just the flowers they would have been sat on if it was bug season... so Bugs in summer.... flowers in winter. Gotcha.
Click to expand...

Now you are being facetious, like I said post anything you like it will be warmly welcomed by all in the section.

BTW it was already been discussed about having a macro bug section and a macro "what David wants section" but the Mods decided they didn't want any more sections.

Pookeyhead said:
My sum total of Macro images = 1. I just wanted to see how similar equipment performs. If I have a call for Macro, I'll shoot something, and post it. I'll post up the test image then.
Click to expand...

GOOGLE
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
...the photography seems to play second fiddle a bit.
Click to expand...

When it comes to wildlife I think that is very often the case. The interest in photography comes out of an interest in looking at nature and a desire to record it. A friend of mine bought his camera gear for that very reason and he only uses it for wildlife and family pictures. He's tried to take other sorts of shots but can't get into it.

Maybe look in the Creative section for more 'out there' macros? :D
 
Pookeyhead said:
Yeah.. friendliest place on the net. Silly me.. I assumed that it may be better to use the forum and see what others are doing in here. I'll just use Google then from now on instead of the forum.
LOL
Click to expand...

Lmao google would be the quickest to find comparison shots, I personally don't know of anyone using the 60mm Nikkor on the macro section but that may be due to people not stating the equipment used.

Where did the bolded statement come from? You obviously like an argument but I won't be joining in.


Ed Sutton said:
Maybe look in the Creative section for more 'out there' macros? :D
Click to expand...

Agree it tends to be were the splash art etc hang out.
 
Pookeyhead said:
As per title. I was given a Nikkor 60mm Macro lens this weekend, as the owner no longer wanted it - it was faulty. I've repaired it, and was testing it, and just thought I'd see how images from it compare to others taken with similar equipment, and after clicking on thread after thread, after thread... soon realised that everyone in here who uses macro, seems to shoot insects.

Why?

Surely there's other stuff on this planet that's interesting close up?
Click to expand...

David, as I pointed out in a thread that we both spend a lot of time time in discussion on ………. photography can be and in part is for me a record of my interest in birds and nature ……… and what I want are the best, e.g. Damselfly, etc., shots that I can get.
I could also apply this to wrist watches which I am also interested in.

photography is not just photography………. in many cases the subject is the only important thing to me ……. not the image ……. there are a couple of damselflies that I have only seen once and quite a few birds that the same applies to?

Macro v close up's we have had that debate, what is a macro, (definition), we have had that debate, where should images of insects and the like go, we have had that debate, - in macro or "wild and free" - we have had that debate - I always put my shots in "wild and free" not in macro.

@BRASH has posted non insect shots in macro ……. there are macro shots that are not insects

Join in as I am sure that you have a lot to offer
 
Last edited:
Yv said:
Lets not argue about it too much chaps eh.

@Pookeyhead you possibly already know this, but I think you can still search flickr by lens and camera types, so that will probably be a good place to get comparison photos for a specific lens.
Click to expand...

Who is arguing? If it's David to himself then that's not an argument that's what they used to call a psychotic episode!

The jacket please lol
 
David

I have a 55mm Nikon micro and I have found it quite restrictive as a "general" macro lens …… it is OK indoors with subjects in say a light box where you can get near on a tripod, control the light and have plenty of time ……. but outdoors I just find it difficult to use.
I also find that I use my Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR micro more for portraits and general "groups of people" shots than I do for straight close ups or 1:1 macros.

I thinks that there are better set ups if you want to get into "macros"

here is a good site

http://extreme-macro.co.uk

that may help to answer any questions that you have
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
David

I have a 55mm Nikon micro and I have found it quite restrictive as a "general" macro lens …… it is OK indoors with subjects in say a light box where you can get near on a tripod, control the light and have plenty of time ……. but outdoors I just find it difficult to use.
I also find that I use my Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR micro more for portraits and general "groups of people" shots than I do for straight close ups or 1:1 macros.

I thinks that there are better set ups if you want to get into "macros"

here is a good site

http://extreme-macro.co.uk

that may help to answer any questions that you have
Click to expand...

Brilliant Bill.... The first page that opens up on @nass website is an image of a bug. lmfao

It is however a great website.
 
Tintin124 said:
Where did the bolded statement come from? You obviously like an argument but I won't be joining in.
Click to expand...

It came from you :)

tintin124 said:
I will say its the friendliest place on TP
Click to expand...

I paraphrased a little.

No argument needed. You just don't get my humour perhaps.


Ed Sutton said:
Maybe look in the Creative section for more 'out there' macros? :D
Click to expand...

I just see lego and waterdrops in there. :)

BillN_33 said:
David, as I pointed out in a thread that we both spend a lot of time time in discussion on ………. photography can be and in part is for me a record of my interest in birds and nature ……… and what I want are the best, e.g. Damselfly, etc., shots that I can get.
I could also apply this to wrist watches which I am also interested in.
Click to expand...

Agreed.. it's many things to many people. It's just that I've never looked in there... ever.. and was surprised by the fact that pretty much every thread I clicked on was a bug on a leaf. Surely there's hidden beauty in everything when you start looking at things from such an unusual perspective, and I was surprised that such a genre was being used in such a limited way.

BillN_33 said:
I always put my shots in "wild and free" not in macro.
Click to expand...

I'd be inclined to agree.

BillN_33 said:
@BRASH has posted non insect shots in macro ……. there are macro shots that are not insects

Join in as I am sure that you have a lot to offer
Click to expand...

If I produce anything worth showing. I've never had an interest in it, as photography for the sake of it, and technique led photography has no interest for me beyond mastering a skill, and once I have it bagged, it gets filed away and waits for a legitimate use of that skill - but I still like to learn new skills when the opportunity arises. I wish I did shoot more macro stuff.. just to add some variation. If it wasn't for being given this lens I;d have probably never thought about it.. even though I already had a macro lens.. it was just one of those oddities I can't even remember buying now. Got a cupboard full of such oddities.

It's just more of an academic interest, as both a photographer, and academic: Why do certain "types" of photography seem to be so dominated by one subject in the amateur arena? It gets distilled down into very tight niches - Documentary becomes street, macro becomes bugs on twigs, wildlife becomes birds on twigs, fashion just becomes portraiture, travel becomes holiday images. It just made me think that the interest comes from the subject, not the medium. So add ornithology with an interest in CAMERAS (not photography) and you get people who shoot birds etc. At the other end of the scale you have academics who are not photographers at all, but have a deep interest in Photography, and understand it as a medium intimately... even though they couldn't tell an fstop from hole in the ground.

I think my interest in these subjects stems from the fact that I straddle that line perhaps more than most: With a commercial photography background, but being a lecturer as an academic subject... I think I just notice these things more maybe? (shrug)
 
Last edited:
Yv said:
Lets not argue about it too much chaps eh.

@Pookeyhead you possibly already know this, but I think you can still search flickr by lens and camera types, so that will probably be a good place to get comparison photos for a specific lens.
Click to expand...


I know... I perhaps wanted a conversation about it though? :)

No big deal. My interest in this is more academic in nature. On of my areas of research is the changing nature of photography and what effect the digital revolution has on photography (and hence future curriculum design). This place is my research ground... you're all my test subjects... hope you don't mind :) I'm ever so grateful though.

Facetiousness aside, that's not the only reason I'm here as I'm sure those who know me realise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yv
Look at the Bird section or say the Communal Dragonfly thread ................... what is the main interest the bird of the method used to record that image

(If I were mischievous I could say the same about nude photography)

If there was no wildlife around, would I be (as) interested in photography, certainly not, if there were not these super quality AF long lenses around (as in the days of film), certainly not - and these great digital computers that are called camera bodies, certainly not - I'd be taking shots of the family and maybe my motor bikes, (in the past) - I tried to explain this to you David in the "other thread"

I could even say that if the convenience of digital had not arrived, would I be as interested in photography, certainly not

but it does not make me any worse or any better than someone who may wish to be called a "photographer" and an artist and I totally accept the beauty and inspiration that some of the great images can give............ but I cannot take them and if I did they would be by accident and I have been taking images for a long time but such an accident rarely comes my way............. and for most people I do not regard photography as an art, and that is a really wonderful thing as in order to (really) enjoy taking images you do not have to be an artist, far from it ......... photography or image taking is within the reach of everyone and gives constant enjoyment and long may it continue

"One of my research" issues is the northward movement of the Violet Dropwing, (Trithemis annulata) and one of my concerns is man's destruction of nature which IMHO is far more important than photography ....... if you want to look at art and beauty, look at nature far far more beautiful and impressive than anything man can create or will ever create .......... just look at one or two"insects"
 
Last edited:
I did an interesting non-bug macro project for my camera club last year. Using a Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro, the aim was to capture everyday household objects at high magnifications and show off the detail and beauty in their structure. It made a fun guessing game for friends' children too.

Here are some of the thumbnails. When they were projected at the club meeting they were typically about 300x life size.

8488-1412616290-3d1adf34563e6d41907560a4218af170.jpg
 
Pookeyhead said:
Why do certain "types" of photography seem to be so dominated by one subject in the amateur arena? It gets distilled down into very tight niches - Documentary becomes street, macro becomes bugs on twigs, wildlife becomes birds on twigs, fashion just becomes portraiture, travel becomes holiday images. It just made me think that the interest comes from the subject, not the medium. So add ornithology with an interest in CAMERAS (not photography) and you get people who shoot birds etc. At the other end of the scale you have academics who are not photographers at all, but have a deep interest in Photography, and understand it as a medium intimately... even though they couldn't tell an fstop from hole in the ground.
Click to expand...

I have a couple of friends who bought a camera specifically to take pictures of wildlife because they spend time outdoors nature watching. One only uses it for that and family snaps. He has tried to do other stuff with it but admits he doesn't 'get' other stuff. His wildlife photography has widened out from static birds on sticks though. The other tries to take landscape and macro shots but lacks the time and commitment to get anywhere.

I got into photography because I was given an Instamatic as a kid followed by a Zenith E to use for an A level project. Have camera will make pictures with it - any pictures. That lead to looking at photographs of all sorts, reading about photographers and then to reading about the medium itself.

I'm not an academic but I'm as interested in photography as a medium as I am in making pictures with it. I see the two as indivisible and can't understand how you can make photographs without trying to understand how the medium operates, is used and is understood. But then I've been told by my local camera shop manager that I'm 'not a normal photographer'!
 
tracybradbury said:
:( and then it deleted them all!!!!!

I said I do shoot macros but hardly ever take insects, which is one reason I never share on here ;)
Click to expand...
Please please dont be affraid to show your photos in the macro/close up section, Some of us do do shoot flowers or other subjects and anyhow, as the colder weather will soon close in on the UK they will be shooting other items.
So please do share :)
 
BillN_33 said:
(If I were mischievous I could say the same about nude photography)
Click to expand...

And you'd be right. A quick look in the nude section in here confirms this. Massive male bias, and a massive bias to those males objectifying female forms into male sexual fantasies. Simple as that. They do it to perv over women. They'll deny it of course, but if that were not so, why the lingerie? Why the sexual poses? Why the objectification? Why the BSDM and fetishist aspect? If people were genuinely interested in studying the nude form, then A) there would be no gender bias, and B) there would not be the heavily sexualised element and sexual objectification, surely.

Men may say they just don't think the male body is as attractive, but maybe that's because they're men?

Many will say it's always been this way, and women have always been the subject of artistic endeavour more than men, but that's only partly true, as it has shifted throughout history and is relatively recent, but historically men were artists, and women were not, as social gender roles were clearly defined, and rigorously enforced. I've made many studies where I have polled the general public and asked them to describe an artist, and overwhelmingly, people (of both sexes) depict him as a man, white, older, and probably unstable in some way. The gender stereotypes are alive and well in the general public.

Ed Sutton said:
I'm not an academic but I'm as interested in photography as a medium as I am in making pictures with it. I see the two as indivisible and can't understand how you can make photographs without trying to understand how the medium operates, is used and is understood. But then I've been told by my local camera shop manager that I'm 'not a normal photographer'!
Click to expand...

Many, many amateurs do just this though (and many professionals also actually). They have little interest in how photography works as a communication medium. They like cameras, and they like making cool images and don;'t give the meaning of those images a second thought. Images created in such a way have no lasting appeal. They may shine briefly if it's a new technique, then quickly, they're copied, and get lost in the literally billions of copycat imagery on the web. To stay on top with such work, you constantly have to be striving for a new technique, or "look", and when you start doing that, you stop caring about what you shoot, but instead, how you shoot it.

Robert Capa once said, "If your pictures are not good enough, you're not close enough", but that's [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]. It may pass muster if you're a war photographer, but for everyone else, I prefer Tod Papageorge's version of that saying: "If your pictures are not good enough, you're not reading enough."
 
Pookeyhead said:
Many, many amateurs do just this though (and many professionals also actually). They have little interest in how photography works as a communication medium. They like cameras, and they like making cool images and don;'t give the meaning of those images a second thought. Images created in such a way have no lasting appeal. They may shine briefly if it's a new technique, then quickly, they're copied, and get lost in the literally billions of copycat imagery on the web. To stay on top with such work, you constantly have to be striving for a new technique, or "look", and when you start doing that, you stop caring about what you shoot, but instead, how you shoot it.

Robert Capa once said, "If your pictures are not good enough, you're not close enough", but that's [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]. It may pass muster if you're a war photographer, but for everyone else, I prefer Tod Papageorge's version of that saying: "If your pictures are not good enough, you're not reading enough."
Click to expand...

"Style is ephemeral – Form is eternal."
David Bomberg.
 
Pookeyhead said:
And you'd be right. A quick look in the nude section in here confirms this. Massive male bias, and a massive bias to those males objectifying female forms into male sexual fantasies. Simple as that. They do it to perv over women. They'll deny it of course, but if that were not so, why the lingerie? Why the sexual poses? Why the objectification? Why the BSDM and fetishist aspect? If people were genuinely interested in studying the nude form, then A) there would be no gender bias, and B) there would not be the heavily sexualised element and sexual objectification, surely.

Men may say they just don't think the male body is as attractive, but maybe that's because they're men?

Many will say it's always been this way, and women have always been the subject of artistic endeavour more than men, but that's only partly true, as it has shifted throughout history and is relatively recent, but historically men were artists, and women were not, as social gender roles were clearly defined, and rigorously enforced. I've made many studies where I have polled the general public and asked them to describe an artist, and overwhelmingly, people (of both sexes) depict him as a man, white, older, and probably unstable in some way. The gender stereotypes are alive and well in the general public.



Many, many amateurs do just this though (and many professionals also actually). They have little interest in how photography works as a communication medium. They like cameras, and they like making cool images and don;'t give the meaning of those images a second thought. Images created in such a way have no lasting appeal. They may shine briefly if it's a new technique, then quickly, they're copied, and get lost in the literally billions of copycat imagery on the web. To stay on top with such work, you constantly have to be striving for a new technique, or "look", and when you start doing that, you stop caring about what you shoot, but instead, how you shoot it.

Robert Capa once said, "If your pictures are not good enough, you're not close enough", but that's [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]. It may pass muster if you're a war photographer, but for everyone else, I prefer Tod Papageorge's version of that saying: "If your pictures are not good enough, you're not reading enough."
Click to expand...

I'm dying to copy and paste this in the nude section. :D
 
Maybe they need slapping about the face a bit with their own sexism :) I find reducing women to sexual objects quite repugnant.
 
For my part I almost exclusively shoot insects as i find them a fascinating subject. They are organic, and most man made subjects you can only magnify by so much before they become uninteresting. There is always something more to see when you get closer and closer with something biological.
Pookeyhead said:
Seen one... seen 'em all... unless you're actually interested in bugs
Click to expand...
Well if you take all the species of fish, all the species of birds, all the species of mammals... in fact take all the species of all animals and then add to it all the different species of trees flowers and plants, there would still be more different species of insects than all of the others put together. Obviously if you have no interest in bugs, then I cant really help you, but you are missing out on a pretty large and varied section of life on this planet.

I frequently encounter new species I haven't come across before (I've been shooting insects seriously for about a year now), often ones I never knew existed and enjoy the opportunity to explore and learn more about the world, and of course the hope of finding something new to science. I also find it challenging to try to get close enough to live subjects and macro has it's own form of "field craft" similar to wildlife photography. This is why I rarely shoot subjects other than invertebrates, I just find shooting insects more fun!

As for any artistic interpretation I agree this may be more limited with insect photography. Generally you want to show off the details of your subject and tend to stick with consistent, even lighting. I still believe there is some room for interpretation, and its easy to spot well crafted images. It's very much all about "how you shoot.."

Pookeyhead said:
Robert Capa once said, "If your pictures are not good enough, you're not close enough", but that's [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]. It may pass muster if you're a war photographer, but for everyone else, I prefer Tod Papageorge's version of that saying: "If your pictures are not good enough, you're not reading enough."
Click to expand...

Nah, I prefer Capa's quote but, then again, I am a macro photographer ;) Besides, I think i've learnt far more by going out shooting with my camera than reading about other people shooting with their cameras and I've definitely had more fun doing it. I haven't tried shooting nudes yet though...
 
Interesting discussion.

I could ramble on a bit, so I'll keep it short and simple.

I found insect macro photography to be a fantastic, challenging, technical exercise. It's great fun and a motivator to get out the house and get wet and muddy.

Over and above that, I mostly agree with Pookeyhead.

Especially about "glamour".


joxby said:
Is attractive different to beautiful
Click to expand...

Oh yes.
 
joxby said:
Is attractive different to beautiful
Click to expand...

one is, (can be), a synonym for the other but there are certain nouns that would be appropriate to one but not the other
 
Last edited:
TimmyG said:
For my part I almost exclusively shoot insects as i find them a fascinating subject. They are organic, and most man made subjects you can only magnify by so much before they become uninteresting. They is always something more to see when you get closer and closer with something biological.
Well if you take all the species of fish, all the species of birds, all the species of mammals... in fact take all the species of all animals and then add to it all the different species of trees flowers and plants, there would still be more different species of insects than all of the others put together. Obviously if you have no interest in bugs, then I cant really help you, but you are missing out on a pretty large and varied section of life on this planet.
Click to expand...

I understand and appreciate all of that. I also appreciate other important aspects of our environment. You're mistaking my lack of interest in seeing bugs on twigs as a lack of knowledge or interest in the environment. I'm missing out on nothing.... I'm just bored of bugs on twigs as a photographic subject.


TimmyG said:
Nah, I prefer Capa's quote but, then again, I am a macro photographer ;) Besides, I think i've learnt far more by going out shooting with my camera than reading about other people shooting with their cameras and I've definitely had more fun doing it. I haven't tried shooting nudes yet though...
Click to expand...

No.. you've learned more about bugs... not photography. I'm not referring to reading about how other people shoot images, and neither was Papageorge. He means reading about anything and everything... about having an opinion, about being learned. You read about bugs though, yes? And reading about bugs has helped you identify and document those bugs. Reading technical photography books have done nothing for your knowledge on your subject matter. However, the photography is just cataloguing bugs. Why not start telling stories about the environment that threatens them, or nurtures them? Why not make the work have a wider appeal? That's what good image making does, whether it's still, or moving. Photography, ALL photography... well, good phtography is documentary in nature.. even fine art photography (and I don't mean what passes for fine art on Flickr). That's why someone engaging, who paints a broader picture of a subject gets a broader appeal. That's why Carl Segan's Cosmos was a sensation in the 70s, and why Brian Cox is as popular as he is today. It reaches out to people with no inherent interest in science, and illuminates their lives and minds with concepts by placing the science in the context of OUR story as human beings, and really contextualises our place in the universe. You could disseminate all that information in a dry, 70s Open University style and the same audience will just switch off in 10 seconds flat... there's no story, or context that involves them. Just dry information.

Bugs on twigs makes people switch off in 10 seconds flat.... unless you have an interest in bugs. So it becomes this incestuous mix of like minded people, all looking at each other's bug on twig shots, but they already know the issues, and already care about the bugs... so it becomes completely redundant... preaching to the choir. GREAT bug photography will transcend those barriers. Just as Attenborough's wildlife films entrance people who aren't really all that interested in wildlife. It's done in such a way that engages the viewer, and that tells the story in a context that places THEM in the narrative - they understand the relationships between the subject and themselves.

simon ess said:
I found insect macro photography to be a fantastic, challenging, technical exercise. It's great fun and a motivator to get out the house and get wet and muddy.
Click to expand...

I agree completely.. on all counts. That doesn't mean anyone wants to look at your work though. Which may, or may not bother you in the slightest, but at some point, you all broadcast that work to the world in one way or another, so people will comment on it... and those that aren't keenly interested in bugs, will probably just think, "yeah, another bug on a leaf". Show me a series of work on that bug, it's environment, the people who care about it, and try to protect it.. those who place it at risk, and the consequences of doing so, and I'll be hooked I promise you, because that would be great photography. That would be have a purpose beyond cataloguing bugs.

You may love cataloguing bugs though.... and more power to you. I'm just explaining the non-bug person's viewpoint to give you some contrast here. It's not that I'm missing out on anything. You assume because I don't like looking at bugs on twigs that A) I don't care about bugs or appreciate them, and B) I lack knowledge in some way. Quite simply... I just find the images all look the same, and don't engage me in any way.

simon ess said:
Over and above that, I mostly agree with Pookeyhead.

Especially about "glamour".

Oh yes.
Click to expand...


Nothing glamorous about glamour at all. That's the irony. Most is incredibly tacky at best, and just serves to perpetuate a bunch of messed up sexual stereotypes that women have to put up with day in, day out at worst.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
As per title. I was given a Nikkor 60mm Macro lens this weekend, as the owner no longer wanted it - it was faulty. I've repaired it, and was testing it, and just thought I'd see how images from it compare to others taken with similar equipment, and after clicking on thread after thread, after thread... soon realised that everyone in here who uses macro, seems to shoot insects.

Why?

Surely there's other stuff on this planet that's interesting close up?
Click to expand...


Yeah, theres other macro/close up stuff on here too :whistle: maybe you didnt look/search hard enough ;)

Whilst Im into butterflies/dragonflies/bugs...Im also into close up/macro shots of wild UK reptiles!

A couple of mine...and i use DSLR/Bridge cameras, as well as the Raynox 250.



Juvenile Common Lizard.

Juvenile Common Lizard. 30th-August-2014. by Testudo Man, on Flickr


Neonate/newborn Adder/Snake (Vipers berus).

Neonate/Newborn Adder (Vipera Berus). 16th-September-2014. by Testudo Man, on Flickr
 
Testudo Man said:
Yeah, theres other macro/close up stuff on here too :whistle: maybe you didnt look/search hard enough ;)
Click to expand...

I clicked every single thread for 2 pages... that's around 80 threads. If it wasn't a bug on a plant of some sort, it was the plant without the bug :) ...or maybe, as you pointed out... lizards on rocks occasionally.. although I saw none. I just don't get why it's not called a wildlife forum, and a sub forum of the larger wildlife forum. WIth such a heavy macro-wildlife content, it's a bit disconcerting when someone who assumed macro just means close up photography... of anything.... and finds just bugs... and just to keep you happy... the odd reptile :)

Surely you see my point?
 
Pookeyhead said:
No.. you've learned more about bugs... not photography. .
Click to expand...
No I've learned more about photography by doing it. I agree with your argument around story telling. Indeed that is great photography, and something I aspire to. I've recently started practicing my landscape photography in an attempt to show the environment in which I find the bugs though. There was a recent discussion about it in the macro section and even if such images should be included in that section. I believe the consensus was, along the lines of "absolutely, if it helps tell the story."

I fully appreciate the "bug on a stick" can get old very quickly, but most of us aspire to get consistently decent "bug on a stick" shots. Like all forms of photography, it's a journey, and being able to master the techniques required to get these types of shots is what allows you to play around and tell the story as you want to tell it. I do like to have some variety in my models, but I am much more interested in taking a hundred shots of the same subject than cataloging all the species I encounter, provided I am improving with each shot.
Pookeyhead said:
Bugs on twigs makes people switch off in 10 seconds flat.... unless you have an interest in bugs. So it becomes this incestuous mix of like minded people, all looking at each other's bug on twig shots, but they already know the issues, and already care about the bugs... so it becomes completely redundant... preaching to the choir. .
Click to expand...
I don't actually look at the threads on that forum to admire the bugs (oh alright, I do), but rather I'm looking to the techniques used to shoot them and can either advise if I see it would help, or learn from others and hopefully improve myself.
Pookeyhead said:
I clicked every single thread for 2 pages... that's around 80 threads. If it wasn't a bug on a plant of some sort, it was the plant without the bug :) ...or maybe, as you pointed out... lizards on rocks occasionally.. although I saw none. I just don't get why it's not called a wildlife forum, and a sub forum of the larger wildlife forum. WIth such a heavy macro-wildlife content, it's a bit disconcerting when someone who assumed macro just means close up photography... of anything.... and finds just bugs... and just to keep you happy... the odd reptile :)

Surely you see my point?
Click to expand...
i have no argument against that. As Bryn pointed out earlier, it has been suggested not so long ago but ultimately rejected. I don't really care if people post in the macro or wildlife sections, but I personally think it makes more sense to post my images in the macro section. Although the subjects share similarities, both focusing on living creatures and, along with the bird section, having many of those subjects sitting on sticks, there is a great difference in the techniques used to capture them. Which is more important?
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I clicked every single thread for 2 pages... that's around 80 threads. If it wasn't a bug on a plant of some sort, it was the plant without the bug :) ...or maybe, as you pointed out... lizards on rocks occasionally.. although I saw none. I just don't get why it's not called a wildlife forum, and a sub forum of the larger wildlife forum. WIth such a heavy macro-wildlife content, it's a bit disconcerting when someone who assumed macro just means close up photography... of anything.... and finds just bugs... and just to keep you happy... the odd reptile :)

Surely you see my point?
Click to expand...

To be fair, I havent really read this thread of yours (maybe i should) before i reply/post something "Captain Sensible" here!

I just saw the macro heading thread, and decided to "piggy back your ass" and "whore" a couple of my images in here:whistle:

Anyway, your thread got a couple of responses didnt it?? Ive had 2 new threads up for approx an hour, and not one reply yet;)
I guess it helps "being in" with "the in crowd" some.
 
I'd be interested to know if there would be enough content from inanimate object close-up photography to warrant a macro section at all if you moved wildlife macro out of the way. I don't think there would be it would be a dead section.

Again why do you think cause you only saw bugs that is only thing people want to see that is a very narrow mindset.

Be the exception not the rule, maybe people are getting scared eg @tracybradbury but it's an unjust fear and not the section which is holding that type of photography back from the section. You don't know until you try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top