Why are all Macro shots in here of insects?

Looking at it for a longer period of time I cannot see why #109 isn't artistic - the "Polypropylene Predator".
 
big soft moose said:
the answer would be because everyone posting likes badgers , and that if you feel it should have more foxes perhaps you'd like to go shoot some.

Anyway the analogy is flawed - it would be closer to say a wildlife forum featuring only mammals , which actually is pretty close to the truth (because birds has its own section)

Also how can someone who doesnt actually shoot in a genre have the right to say what it should or shouldnt contain ?
Click to expand...

So you have to shoot anything to have an opinion? Not seen you post anything recently.. you're still here..with an opinion :)
 
@Pookeyhead has every right to comment on what is posted there (even if he knew nothing about photography he would have every right). He also has every right to suggest alternatives to what he sees there, or explain more of the type of things he would like to see. It's up to people who shoot macro to decide if they want to go down that route or continue what they are doing.

David, I can't think how else to answer the simple question posted originally. If the answers given don't cover it for you it may be worth asking a different question that might help us to tell you what you need.
 
Pookeyhead said:
So you have to shoot anything to have an opinion? Not seen you post anything recently.. you're still here..with an opinion :)
Click to expand...

no anyone can have an opinion - they are like arseholes , everyone has one, mostly other people don't want to see it, someimes it stinks and its sometimes full of s***

However that wasnt my point you say "the genre (board) should be be full of diverse and varied shots" What i'm asking is how as someone who never shoots macro you know what the genre should be, and for that matter why anyone else should take you seriously if you don't in fact take those shots yourself. (if you were a macro specialist with a wide range of diverse shots then your opinion might have more weight)

AS it happens I shoot a lot of macro - predominantly of insects - I rarely post pictures . However i very rarely if ever shoot N&G , which is why I don't spend much time trying to dictate what the subject of the N&G board should be
 
TimmyG said:
@Pookeyhead has every right to comment on what is posted there (even if he knew nothing about photography he would have every right). He also has every right to suggest alternatives to what he sees there, or explain more of the type of things he would like to see. It's up to people who shoot macro to decide if they want to go down that route or continue what they are doing.
.
Click to expand...

Ths is true - but it doesnt answer the point of how he knows that a diverse range of subjects are possible or should be taken
 
TimmyG said:
@Pookeyhead has every right to comment on what is posted there (even if he knew nothing about photography he would have every right). He also has every right to suggest alternatives to what he sees there, or explain more of the type of things he would like to see. It's up to people who shoot macro to decide if they want to go down that route or continue what they are doing.

David, I can't think how else to answer the simple question posted originally. If the answers given don't cover it for you it may be worth asking a different question that might help us to tell you what you need.
Click to expand...

While I don't produce any Macro work, I do find it fascinating, and see a lot of potential in the genre.... One of the things that I do agree with you on, is the way going in close reveals whole new worlds, and I absolutely do get the appeal of insects in that respect, but you can have too much of a good thing. I think the sheer amount of insects in that forum would actually put me off shooting any though.. I;d be like "What's the point?... already a million of them out there".

I really don't get the attitude that says because I don't shoot macro I can't comment though. Many people in here don't post any images of anything... they can still comment, and should do.

What I need? Strong words. I don;'t need anything. Was genuinely curious as to what a forum is so dominated by such a narrow field when the genre is so naturally wide.
 
There are over 1,000,000 insect species, and a further 40,000 different spiders. So far. More are discovered every day. So plenty of challenging photography to be had. And macro is a pretty good medium to use, I'd say. Macro shots of, I dunno, keys, or chutney, or...or an empty wine glass (still sitting at the dinner table :)) look pretty mundane next to the spiracles of a beetle seen in a well focused and well lit photo. I don't own a macro lens (little call for it in press work), but am endlessly fascinated by these macro shots of tiny animals - and full of admiration for the people who have the skill and patience to take them.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
Ths is true - but it doesnt answer the point of how he knows that a diverse range of subjects are possible
Click to expand...

Huh? Because it stands to reason. You can go close to anything and show it in a new light. Insects, food, rocks, crystalline forms, skin, meat, refuse, excrement, confectionery, natural materials, mould, fungi... I could just carry on listing the entire contents of the world. I don't need to see it shot to imagine the possibilities. If it's there.. you can go close to it, and show it in a different way.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I really don't get the attitude that says because I don't shoot macro I can't comment though. Many people in here don't post any images of anything... they can still comment, and should do.
.
Click to expand...

I didnt say that - anyone can comment , we have several members who don't even have a camera - what i was saying is that the weight that I ,and perhaps others, will give to your opinion is influenced by your lack of experience with the genre

If you tell me - theres loads of subjects other than insects and household equipment - then great thats your opinion, but frankly unsupported I'm not going to take much notice of it

If you tell me - theres loads of subjects other than insects and household equipment, and for example here's a portfolio of fantastic images I took of a lump of putty i found in my belly button (or whatever) ... then i'll look at the images and perhaps try out photographing belly button putty myself
 
Pookeyhead said:
Huh? Because it stands to reason. You can go close to anything and show it in a new light. Insects, food, rocks, crystalline forms, skin, meat, refuse, excrement, confectionery, natural materials, mould, fungi... I could just carry on listing the entire contents of the world. I don't need to see it shot to imagine the possibilities. If it's there.. you can go close to it, and show it in a different way.
Click to expand...

Fantastic , as above show me some shots you've taken of those things and i'll take your opinion seriously ... otherwise its just so much hot air
 
big soft moose said:
If you tell me - theres loads of subjects other than insects and household equipment - then great thats your opinion, but frankly unsupported I'm not going to take much notice of it
Click to expand...

Sorry Pete - that is nonsense, and I think you know it.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'm starting to get fed up with all the bloody kid photos in people and portraits too, but it's not reached epidemic proportions yet.
Click to expand...

I recently put some pictures of the Ed Fringe in there for crit but didn't get one comment.
I might just try kids then if that the done thing?
;)

Oh, or bugs in macro of course....
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
Fantastic , as above show me some shots you've taken of those things and i'll take your opinion seriously ... otherwise its just so much hot air
Click to expand...


Nah.. not falling for the troll. You don't need to shoot a genre to have an opinion or know anything about it, and you damned well know it. Like I said... not seen you post an image you've taken for... well.. can't remember, so by your measure, I shouldn't be taking anything you say seriously.... and I'm not. :) If you have anything to add to the debate of course.. carry on.


I don't shoot much fashion photography but I know a great deal about it. Roland Barthes was not a photographer, but he knew more about it than anyone in here.


And.. you need to SEE things before you believe them? You can go close to anything. If it's there... it can be macro. You really lack imagination that much?
 
Last edited:
simon ess said:
Sorry Pete - that is nonsense, and I think you know it.
Click to expand...

so if i tell you that the best way to take a macro photo is to use a pringles tube and half a mile of gaffer tape you'll believe me witout seeing any proof ? ( Actually i did post those pictures somewhere - they were very hi mag shots of a match head flaring, but quite soft)

You ,and david are missing the point - I'm not saying that there is no other option for macro photography , i'm saying that the opinion of someone who never does a given form of photography doesnt hold much credence or value. David is quite entitled to his opinion but what i'm saying is why should I or any macro photographer take any notice of it , given that he has no actually experience with the genre to back it up
 
Last edited:
The amount of energy used on this forum ….. if we could combine it all we would make mi££ions (more)
 
Pookeyhead said:
Nah.. not falling for the troll. You don't need to shoot a genre to have an opinion or know anything about it,?
Click to expand...

no I agree you don't , but you do have to shoot a genre to expect those that do to take you seriously when you start telling them they are doing it wrong.

Would you listen to me if I started telling you how to plan a lecture ... given that I've never taught FE in my life and have no experience with doing it when you are probably good at it ?

Returning to the OP the answer at least for me is that I shoot insects because i like taking pictures of them ( I shoot flowers in season for the same reason) . Chocolate, food stuffs, excrement etc don't hold much interest for me
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
so if i tell you that the best way to take a macro photo is to use a pringles tube and half a mile of gaffer tape you'll believe me witout seeing any proof ?
Click to expand...

I'm not telling anyone HOW to take macro shots, just that anything can be the subject of macro. That... is a fact.
 
big soft moose said:
no I agree you don't , but you do have to shhot a genre to expect those that do to take you seriously when you start telling them they are doing it wrong
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they're doing it wrong.. technically, they're utterly superb in the main. I'm questioning the limited range of subject matter.

Stop trolling.
 
Take another look at my post Pete - #131.

You seem to be confusing method and subject. Inadvertently I assume.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I really don't get the attitude that says because I don't shoot macro I can't comment though. Many people in here don't post any images of anything... they can still comment, and should do.
Click to expand...
Erm.. that's exactly what I said!


food - done it
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8542547017/in/set-72157634329036356
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/sets/72157634329036356/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8520211222/in/set-72157634329036356
rocks, crystalline forms - not spent to much time on but done sugar and salt, there is a large group of people that like to shoot these (not many on this forum though)
skin - done it - not got examples to hand, i wasn't overly impressed with the end result
meat - done it (well it was an M&S chicken skin so I guess that counts as meat)
refuse, excrement - not done these two, not sure I want to, but I have done a non-macro one at the tip:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8702778620/in/set-72157632400222273
confectionery - done it
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8525789166/in/set-72157634329036356
natural materials - does this count?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8731721701/in/set-72157632400222273
mould , fungi - done it, and still do it from time to time
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8457386880/in/set-72157634329036356
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/10516953823/in/set-72157625980985030
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/9901909816/in/set-72157625980985030
Also, Moss:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8647224377/in/set-72157632400222273
insects - done it, still doing it and enjoying it more than all the above

You missed a good one though - Electricity :)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8528637775/in/set-72157634329036356
Or how about light?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8731721691/in/set-72157632400222273
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'm not saying they're doing it wrong.. technically, they're utterly superb in the main. I'm questioning the limited range of subject matter.

Stop trolling.
Click to expand...

Well you can't blame me for once David as I have never posted a Macro, micro or whatever

mine go in "Wild and free"
 
TimmyG said:
Erm.. that's exactly what I said!


food - done it
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8542547017/in/set-72157634329036356
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/sets/72157634329036356/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8520211222/in/set-72157634329036356
rocks, crystalline forms - not spent to much time on but done sugar and salt, there is a large group of people that like to shoot these (not many on this forum though)
skin - done it - not got examples to hand, i wasn't overly impressed with the end result
meat - done it (well it was an M&S chicken skin so I guess that counts as meat)
refuse, excrement - not done these two, not sure I want to, but I have done a non-macro one at the tip:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8702778620/in/set-72157632400222273
confectionery - done it
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8525789166/in/set-72157634329036356
natural materials - does this count?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8731721701/in/set-72157632400222273
mould , fungi - done it, and still do it from time to time
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8457386880/in/set-72157634329036356
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/10516953823/in/set-72157625980985030
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/9901909816/in/set-72157625980985030
Also, Moss:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8647224377/in/set-72157632400222273
insects - done it, still doing it and enjoying it more than all the above

You missed a good one though - Electricity :)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8528637775/in/set-72157634329036356
Or how about light?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8731721691/in/set-72157632400222273
Click to expand...


That was aimed at Pete, not you Timmy.

The list however... is literally endless. If it is there... it can be photographed, and if it can be photographed, then it can be photographed closely.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
anything can be the subject of macro. That... is a fact.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree - but you arent just telling us that we could be taking pictures of anything, but we should be

What i'm saying is that for me at least to take someone seriously when they tell me what I should be doing, I need to see some evidence that they know what they are talking about... yes there are numerous possible subjects out there, but I like taking pictures of insects (and flowers) and will continue to take pictures of insects and flowers. because for me non proffesional photography is about doing the things I like , not meeting someonelses expectations of what a genre should be. I'll move to other subjects if someone who knows what they are talking about shows me a great opportunity that i'm missing, but not simply to conform to a theoretical view of what my photography "should" be

And FWIW just because i fundamentally disagree with both your view of what the genre is , and whether those of us who practice it should be doing it in a certain way , does not make me a troll - people can honourably hold, and indeed express differing views

and on that note i'm done with this particular thread
 
TimmyG said:
Agreed :)
Click to expand...


I'd be surprised that anyone who specialises in Macro did disagree. THAT is the real reason I posed the original question: I was actually very surprised there was so little variety in there.
 
big soft moose said:
I don't disagree - but you arent just telling us that we could be taking pictures of anything, but we should be
Click to expand...

I don't recall telling anyone what they should be shooting Pete. I'm just surprised so few are shooting anything but insects. I've never once said "you should be shooting xxxxx". There's a difference between asking why you're not shooting anything else, and telling people what they should be shooting. The only time I got close to that was when I suggested to Bryn that he shoot other stuff because he suggested he was actively trying to encourage just that.

big soft moose said:
and on that note i'm done with this particular thread
Click to expand...

See ya.

TimmyG said:
And we all explained why. Several times.

Am i missing something?
Click to expand...

I don't think so... you like bugs. I get that. Nothing against it either, despite what you may think. I'm just wondering if it discourages others from posting anything else. I'm wondering, considering the truly inexhaustible range of possibilities, how the forum developed in such a way.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I don't recall telling anyone what they should be shooting Pete. I'm just surprised so few are shooting anything but insects. I've never once said "you should be shooting xxxxx". There's a difference between asking why you're not shooting anything else, and telling people what they should be shooting. The only time I got close to that was when I suggested to Bryn that he shoot other stuff because he suggested he was actively trying to encourage just that..
Click to expand...
Its curious, and yes I do see where David is coming from.
A little while ago, a couple of months maybe, it was suggested that "Macro"
was tagged on to or even incorporated with the the Nature animal / wildlife section, due to the high percentage of "animal" type shots.

There was an up roar and certain members promised to flood the section with inanimate objects / still waiting ;)

Now I'm not saying its about to happen but as above, I can see where David is coming from.
Having said that of course there are no rules to say what can and can't be posted in there :)
 
Ok so the REAL question is "Are all the bug images in the Macro section putting people off posting images other than bugs?"

That's a whole different discussion and something I can't provide any answers to. But I hope not. Over the past year there have been numerous non bug/flower shots posted and they were responded to with the same good intentions as the majority of posts on that forum. You just might have to search a bit for good examples.
 
TimmyG said:
Ok so the REAL question is "Are all the bug images in the Macro section putting people off posting images other than bugs?"
Click to expand...

You know, there might be something in that Tim.

Bug images have become the norm and perhaps some people aren't too comfortable sticking out from the norm.

I don't know - just a thought.
 
Simon beat me to it ;)
Who knows in reality? It certainly shouldn't do,

Maybe the "macro crowd" are only interested in insects flowers fungi etc?
But I have to say though that forum is peaceful and very active :thumbs:
 
Wow, ive just read though this entire thread, and am astonished at how (what appeared to me to be) a genuine observation/question from David turned out that way.
 
Well the OP made a comment/statement that a few tried to respond to. This was either miscommunicated or misinterpreted. There was a bit of argy bargy, a lot of he said/she said. Insults were flung around. The admins stepped in. Apologies were made. It wandered off topic for quite some time before it became apparent everyone was pretty much arguing the same point and the question in the first place wasn't the one an answer was needed for.

Seems a pretty standard thread to me.
 
Well, to (finally) bring the thread back on topic, after watching it simmer for a few days, but not having the strength to reply due to the uninvited guest (a.k.a. Norovirus, or one of the 25 bastards that make up the family) that decided to come knocking, I'd like to throw my 2p in...

Macro shots of bugs got me in to photography - period. When I started seeing those critters close up, it blew my mind. I was out there in the rain, sun, wind, whatever - as long as the bugs were out, I was out taking pics. Hell, I even learnt DIY flash diffusion to pursue the art. I never really 'lliked' bugs, it's just they were there. I didn't need to pay them, they were always willing and I learnt some technical things I never would have learnt had I not stumbled across macro photography.

Now, I tried drops, abstract, blah, blah, blah but the only subjects that held my interest were bugs. Not sure why, but I always found them more interesting than anything else. I even tried to put bugs into interesting locations (anyone seen Disco Dave, the bee?) but that didn't seem to draw a crowd. Nonetheless, I forged on with shots of my buggy friends and posted many a thread in the macro section - some got comments, some didn't, some got praise, Disco Dave didn't...

Anyway, the point is, nothing attracted me to macro except bugs. I didn't get the same enjoyment photographing inanimate objects. That's why I posted so many bugs.

Then my daughter was born. Damn, did that change my opinion of bugs! Now I had a person to photograph. Hell, I had to learn about newborn photography. Now, as anyone who has had kids knows, they grow up - fast. So before you knew it, I was learning about lighting and reflectors and posting more pics in the portrait forum than in the macro forum. My poor bug friends were left in the cold, while I was left wondering if my strobes were stunting her growth...

I finally roped my wife into posing for me so that I could learn how to photograph adults. You guys loved those pics, almost as much as I enjoyed taking them ;) pity they are are more few and far between, than the ones of Cassie.

Then I did my first wedding as a 2nd (I didn't post post any pics here - we all know how wedding threads go...) and then another, then my first solo and another (still no pics, we all know how wedding threads go...) but I still continue to evolve and learn.

I am sure I am p***ing @Pookeyhead off something chronic as I keep posting his least favourite subjects. The thing is, for those of us trying to perfect our craft (whatever level we may be at) it's usually the availability of the subject that dictates the frequency of the sitting.

For me, anyway, there's not much else to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top