# LP Multi Uber Ultra Macro photo.



## Gwegowee (Nov 21, 2006)

this picture is about respect. most people kill every little spider they see. 
(not us but you know what I mean) so I am putting the viewer of this 
piece in the shoes of a spider right before they death... 

you are cornered by this HUGE beast, in a panic, you cant focus or 
concentrate. 

every leg/pedipalp has a different and oposite depth of focus. Every 
thing about this photo was planned out. I even scared the spider into this 
position. to the entrance of the burrow. 

This is my newest masterpiece. my first nearly full size print of this is 
actually comming off the press as I speak. digital file printing at 350 px 
per inch at 13 by 35 inches on the best of Fine art printing paper for the 
price Crane's Museo, which costs only $30 per sheet. cut to size by 
myself. this image is not as large as the last one I showed you but still 
quite large. only 11050 by 4788 px. if a digital camera could take this 
photo it would be an astonishingly 52.9 MPx camera compared to the 
standard 3.2 to 5.6 or the high end 8.2 MPx to 16 Mpx. 

well I guess I'll show you the image:






for a higher quality image go here 
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/43408730/ 

and for close up details 
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/43410763/ 

the print looks much better. I have photos of the print now... but my CF card is dying... I guess I take too many photos.


----------



## becca81 (Nov 22, 2006)

Ok, before if I offer feedback, I'm curious if you're seeking feedback or just wanted to share?


----------



## Vys (Nov 22, 2006)

It is kind of a nice photo, although I associate 'usually stepped-on little spiders' with indigenous spiders, so that link seems a little off.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Nov 22, 2006)

Vys said:


> It is kind of a nice photo, although I associate 'usually stepped-on little spiders' with indigenous spiders, so that link seems a little off.


Then think of it as a baby_ A. chalcodes_.


----------



## Thoth (Nov 22, 2006)

Its very nice but if you want to give a prey's eye view I would have gone with the full frontal shoot instead of the 3/4 profile shown, just my uneducated opinion.


----------



## IguanaMama (Nov 22, 2006)

Thoth said:


> Its very nice but if you want to give a prey's eye view I would have gone with the full frontal shoot instead of the 3/4 profile shown, just my uneducated opinion.


Didn't you mention you had a master's degree or somethin'?  You don't need a degree in art to offer an opinion (IMO).


----------



## Gwegowee (Nov 22, 2006)

becca81 said:


> Ok, before if I offer feedback, I'm curious if you're seeking feedback or just wanted to share?


Hmmm  what kind of feed back do you mean? lol...   well im not really "seeking" feedback but I wouldn't mind it.



Vys said:


> It is kind of a nice photo, although I associate 'usually stepped-on little spiders' with indigenous spiders, so that link seems a little off.


kindof??   well   you really need to see the actual print...

yeah... I agree about stepping on spiders with non tarantulas...  but the people still tell me that they would squash any one of my spiders if they saw it out of its cage. "even if it WAS a 1 foot spider" they say, (I think they would run home to mommy).
but my point is... to you and I it might be a bit off... but to every other normal person on the planet... its a spider they have no clue what Lasiodora parahybana is.



Thoth said:


> Its very nice but if you want to give a prey's eye view I would have gone with the full frontal shoot instead of the 3/4 profile shown, just my uneducated opinion.


well... I have seen my spiders attack in all directions.... and I dont really like strait forward shots. its just kinda....  too strait forward...  but if I were a cricket I'd be afraid from any side. lol. I did this angle with the one leg pointing at the viewer on purpose. like he's saying "You!!!" and the eyes just barely in sight from behind the pedepalp.. that was planned out aswell.



ok...
so now I'll show you a picture of the print. it still doesn't do the actual print justice. but hey what can you do. I can't put 1.25 GB photos on the net.

this print is 13 by 35 inches


----------



## Vys (Nov 22, 2006)

ShadowBlade said:


> Then think of it as a baby_ A. chalcodes_.



*Glances outside the window* ..hmm, cold, rainy, and concrete flooring? : )


----------



## Gwegowee (Nov 23, 2006)

Vys said:


> *Glances outside the window* ..hmm, cold, rainy, and concrete flooring? : )


http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/images/smilies/033102stupid_1_prv.gif
I dont get it. but I dont often catch the most obvious of things.


----------



## Vys (Nov 23, 2006)

I only mean that Cork appears quite bereft of most arachnids.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Nov 23, 2006)

Vys said:


> I only mean that Cork appears quite bereft of most arachnids.


Well, you aren't the only person that would see this print. Apparently most that see it would be in New Mexico. Which alot of Aphonopelma are indigenous to.


----------



## TheDarkFinder (Nov 23, 2006)

Alright this post really missed me. What are you doing. Do not tell me you found the ppi control in photo shop. You just can not increase the ppi and get a better photo. Look at it, it is very grainy. What is the fstop on that 3 or 4. very narrow picture only the top of the knee is in focus. if you are going to use photoshop then try the curve, sharpness, and denoise function. Not to seem mean here but you photo is very soso.


----------



## Gwegowee (Nov 23, 2006)

Oy  :wall: 

OH no nonono..... I did not just increase the dpi just by making the picture bigger.   I took 20 Micro/ubermacro/ultramacro Photographs...  only  15 Pictures were used to simplify it tho. all pictures were at MAX aperture. smallest hole possible. grainyness is caused by the internet.

You must REALLY see the actual print inorder to see any true quality.
I have already taken this to the Photography Professor and Photography Graduate students at school. they have a few things to say about it... but. my techniques were never mentioned. and you must remember that this spider is an inch and a half in legspan.

the showing of depth through  focus is not supposed to make any sense for artistic purposes. its supposed to be confusing. and hard to focus yourself. if you notice actually one knee is in focus and the next is not... and the next has the leg in focus. pedepalp knee is in focus and rest is not... next pedipalp has toe in focus. next leg has the knee close to in focus, but really out of focus in order to brake the patern and draw the viewer in. the next leg has the most of all in focus. again to help brake the patern and ballance for the out of focus leg.

believe me... the actual picture or print is NOT grainy.
I used 100 ISO and and fstop of something like f38 to f44 I dont remember. it must be Sized down or cropped to fit on a page 13 by 36 inches.


----------



## Vys (Nov 24, 2006)

ShadowBlade said:


> Well, you aren't the only person that would see this print. Apparently most that see it would be in New Mexico. Which alot of Aphonopelma are indigenous to.


I never said it wasn't subjective.


----------



## TheDarkFinder (Nov 24, 2006)

Gwegowee said:


> 1
> 
> I have already taken this to the Photography Professor and Photography Graduate students at school. they have a few things to say about it... but. my techniques were never mentioned. and you must remember that this spider is an inch and a half in legspan.


I'm sorry miss understood about the tech. I assumed. 


But you need to pull the picture out a little. It does need some work. Second question, why not get a micro lens?


----------



## danread (Nov 24, 2006)

I can see what you're trying to do, but, no offence intended, i don't think the technique you are using works very well. The file might have a huge amount of information in it, but the resolution doesn't seem to be that great. The hairs on the legs are out of focus, or fuzzy, and there is an overall lack of sharpness to the photo. The technique also sees to have introduced some strange artefacts around the legs on the right hand side. I think you would have a better photo if you too one well exposed, well focused photo that filled the frame with a decent camera (6-10 mp), and if you want to blow it up for printing, get some good interpolation software (although the photoshop one does a decent job).

Cheers,


----------



## becca81 (Nov 24, 2006)

danread said:


> I can see what you're trying to do, but, no offence intended, i don't think the technique you are using works very well. The file might have a huge amount of information in it, but the resolution doesn't seem to be that great. The hairs on the legs are out of focus, or fuzzy, and there is an overall lack of sharpness to the photo. The technique also sees to have introduced some strange artefacts around the legs on the right hand side. I think you would have a better photo if you too one well exposed, well focused photo that filled the frame with a decent camera (6-10 mp), and if you want to blow it up for printing, get some good interpolation software (although the photoshop one does a decent job).
> 
> Cheers,



These are the same thoughts that I had.

While it's a nice photo, I don't see anything overly special.  I really do think the lack of sharpness in any one particular place is distracting and takes away from the overall image.

If you're interested in joining, I've had some very good feedback and tips provided at this photography forum.


----------



## Tegenaria (Nov 24, 2006)

Looking at the close up pic on deviantart, I see a lot of chromatic abberation, red/blue fringes,around the hairs and other high contrast areas. Its like a simple lens was used as a magnifier and the cameras lens was not stopped down to compensate.(I get similar when i use my 8X loupe to get closer pics with my phone cam)

Its a neat pic overall tho.


----------



## Marcelo (Nov 24, 2006)

I am not consider my self a professional photographer, but I been taking pictures since my childhood. This is my honest opinion, no offence I do not understand at all your technic, your eye does not know what to see:

Maybe Chris Hamilton can give a better opinion

I also agree with Tegenaria 

First of all, there is too much light on the picture that wash out the colors and the light is very distracting 

I do not see the real purpose on focusing one leg then the next one out of focus then focus again the pedipalp. Never hear or seen this technic before. That does not work in macro fotography. Usually your subject must be all in focus while the background out of focus, depending what you want to enhace.

Imagine you are taking a picture. the subject is a "ring" it is almost imposible to keep the whole "ring" in focus, what you need to do is take a few pictures but changing the focus point each time, then just merge all the pictures together to have all the "ring" in focus. 

Apertures at F38 and F44 do not give you necesarly more deep of focus at a certain point but will give you also more chromatic aberration, like your picture.
The deep of focus not only will vary depending on your lens but also depends on the distance from the film or sensor to the subject.

I think you are confused about "the apertures". The bigger the number the smaller the aperture of the lens. but you are saying "all pictures were at MAX aperture. smallest hole possible" 

MAX aperture could be depending on your lens, F1.0, F2.5, F2.8. F4.0, F5.6, etc but not F38 F44.  

"you said grainyness is caused by the internet". I guess the grainyness is caused by the ISO numbers.   

I hope you understand my point of view.


----------



## Gwegowee (Nov 24, 2006)

TheDarkFinder said:


> you need to pull the picture out a little. It does need some work. Second question, why not get a micro lens?


a few reasons powerfull Macro lens are VERY expensive. I do not have that kind of money. unless someone bought a large bunch of my art. sales are normally one or two pieces at a time. so a powerful dedicated Macro lens is out of the question.

second... even the most powerful most expensive Macro lenses cant magnify as much as I am doing. I'd need the macro lens plus a 2x Macro adapter to do pretty much the same thing.

There is a very good reason for not pulling out a bit. I dont know if you already knew this... but this actually not photography it's digital photomanipulation with mere use of a professional DSLR camera most of the time was spent on the computer, the photos were the easy part, making them fit together and work seamlessly is the difficult part. I took each of the 20 photos for a specific purpose. (I liked it more when simplified and only 15 photos are in the final piece.)
each photograph consists of about a quarter to a half of a each leg. and one photo specifically for the eyes. thats how I got the size and detail. I actually took out-of-focus photos on purpose and a few photos specifically for small sections of the dirt. if you look close... you can see atleast 2 separated levels of in-focus , intended for eye movement.


the idea is anthrophobia (a fear of humans in spiders) turned around for people to see what it would be like.  you cant focus... you feel trapped. there is no way out.. except up and to the right (towards the light), but the spider already has that covered. there are walls of loose dirt so you cant climb and backed up against the wall. what do you do.... in the end... you die "squashed by a newspaper or shoe"

I'm also referencing many well known ancient/newer artists in history (Like Da Vincci, Michaelangelo, Carravagio, Durrer, and others from the renaissance era), it would be easier to catch these references after acquiring a major/minor in Art History.... I know not everyone has (very few have) a major/minor in art history... but I wanted to offer a little bit of something for everyone.

and took me a long time waiting for any of my spiderlings (only wanted to use spiderlings as to not clue in on the species) to be in a subtable position for this, needed to be close to the window, legs spread ready for action, facing down or between 2 dramatic hills of dirt, and not near a corner.

if you want me to continue... there was ALOT of planning before I even took the photos but I dont think anyone wants to hear my 3 page essay on everything in the image. any questions will be answered.



what the professor had to say was... paraphraised... there is alot going on in the picture maybe too much. complex art has not been as popular in the last hundred years or so and might be a bit out of place. further simplification might have more value and might express what you want to say quicker and better.

as you may have seen I do have a problem with keeping things short and sweet. lol


----------



## Gwegowee (Nov 24, 2006)

Marcelo said:


> I am not consider my self a professional photographer, but I been taking pictures since my childhood. This is my honest opinion, no offence I do not understand at all your technic, your eye does not know what to see:
> 
> Maybe Chris Hamilton can give a better opinion
> 
> ...




you have never seen this technique before because its completely origional... sortof.
the idea was taken from landscape panoramic photos.

I have also done this with landscape makeing 360 deg panoramic images which I am not the first to do.

Trust me I have been doing photography for a while now... not as long as you maybe... but I am in my 5th year of college going for a double major Photography and Graphic Design and a minor in Art history, I have some  170 completed credits and only need 30 more to graduate. (I'dof done it quicker but give me a break.. full time school full time work and art isn't the easy way out with a double major even)

aperture does have to do with Dof. I understand that it makes more aboration. believe me... if you want me to show you some differences of  maximizing photos between f22  f32  f38 and f45 under certain methods I can show you the difference.  but also to a point im trying to break the rules for a specific look chromatic aboration is not part of my intent, but general aboration is my intent, chromatic aboration I dont mind so much, Im the artist of my own work.. so I get to decide.


trying to combine aspects of real photography and images not possible with photography, with multiple areas that have their own dof and that do not agree with eachother. its not possible thats the hole idea. which is to help make the viewer less able to focus.. feel almost dizzy or give a headache. producing feelings of anxiety and distress. these methods ARE against the many rules of photography. if I wanted a perfect photograph with this proportions no aboration and follow all the photography rules... I would have done so I have the knowledge to do so and the equipment, I choose not to in order to deliberately brake the rules for my own artistic expression.


yes ISO is where things go grainy not grainy in photography. and I rarely use anything other than ISO 100. soemtimes go to 200.  and I do believe there is a place for grainy photography, I just dont like it in much of my work.


I hope you didn't mean to say that f38 and 44 do not exist.
you mean thats not max aperture right?
saying that max aperture is a lowest number fstop which depends on the lens.
right??
yeah I know all that.. I just didn't say max f-number.  but you figured out what I was getting at.  right?
I didn't learn my skills in photography yesterday. I have taken classes.
If you want me to get technical I can... but I'd rather not because Im not IN class.

but if you dont think f38 and 40 exist... then well  WOW....
fstop can go even up into the 350's even
and if you haven't heard of that.. then you probably haven't heard of week long exposures either.

grainyness of some imagegs is caused by the internet. often times if you take a very large image and size it down or take a photo of the art and put that on the net. and save it as a JPEG which is a very lossy compression format you loose alot of good information. als alot of websites like this one... when you upload an image it automatically adjusts the brightness and contrast so everyone can view it on differently calliberated monitors and doesn't always do the best job (my monitors are caliberated for my eyes and to match my printer output). the internet brings out colors differences in an image more than are in the actual picture my image will have 16 million collors where as the internet only has a few thousand or even a few hundred.  what happens is when resizing large images... large cloudy (perfectly out of focus) areas and portions of the image have smooth transitions with a difference between say 80% black and and 100% black among other colors, you end up with 40% black and 70% black which brings out edges that are not actually in the image. distorting the image. these large clouds on the actual picture become smaller and with resizing get more defined edges with the internet. and thus making it look grainy. even areas of detail become averaged and get pixlated. and also become grainy. Im not talking about small images like ones from even a 8 MPx camera or a scanned photo at 72 dpi...  im talking about huge images with alot of detail.   try this...   take any one of your photos and size it down to 50 px by 50 px. save it as a jpg. email it to yourself.. open it again and add 30% contrast and make it 30% brighter. and you will see grains. its the same thing...  this image is.. I cant remember... 10000 px wide?  and sizing it down to even 1000 px wide (which is big for internet use) is sizing it down to 10% actual size. make it 500 Px wide and its only 5%. catch my drift?


----------



## Tegenaria (Nov 24, 2006)

There is a technique called stacking, used for macro and microscope work. Several images are taken of a subject, each one focused on a different plane. You focus, pohotograph, focus,photograph and you end up with lots of photoraphs each like a segment from the original. Then you use software (CombineZ etc)to recombine all the infocus bits to create one overall sharp image. Makes for one very sharp and clear photoraph, tho perhaps not so artistic!


----------



## Marcelo (Nov 24, 2006)

Gwegowee

I am not saying you do not know about photography or lack of knowleage or asked for a photography class, the issue here is about the picture itself. it is too confused for me, too much light, and the focus, out if focus, focus, out of focus, make my eye to looks to diferent parts of the picture but at the end to nothing in particular. 

I do not understand yet your technic, thats why I put the "ring" example or staking technic, thats not new. but you are talking about your own technic thats great

I just tried to give my opinon of the picture itself.

No doubt you had worked for hours, and I can not be more agree with you about breaking rules

Please dont take my answer as a bad chritisism, you only can work what with you have in your hands available. 

I used to take 2-3 days long exposures with my pinhole camera while in elementary school (with a coffe can), please do not ask me about the results. he he he he I went back to the basics of photography "LIGHT"  
I still have my old russian LOMO camera, I and I love it.

thanks for your explanation, now I understand a little bit more your technic

Please do not ingnore me once you be a famous photographer.  


I like to take more simple pictures like this one, foreground out of focus, subject in focus and background out of focus.
This was a single shoot with my Canon 50mm macro lens


----------



## Gwegowee (Nov 24, 2006)

Tegenaria said:


> There is a technique called stacking, used for macro and microscope work. Several images are taken of a subject, each one focused on a different plane. You focus, pohotograph, focus,photograph and you end up with lots of photoraphs each like a segment from the original. Then you use software (CombineZ etc)to recombine all the infocus bits to create one overall sharp image. Makes for one very sharp and clear photoraph, tho perhaps not so artistic!




Oh yes... I have used this aswell. and I have had pretty impressive results...


but again.... that it not my intent with this piece...

I do however believe it to be artistic..  just possibly without intended emotional value. I believe everyone is an artsit... they just dont know it.


----------



## Gwegowee (Nov 24, 2006)

Marcelo said:


> Gwegowee
> 
> I am not saying you do not know about photography or lack of knowleage or asked for a photography class, the issue here is about the picture itself. it is too confused for me, too much light, and the focus, out if focus, focus, out of focus, make my eye to looks to diferent parts of the picture but at the end to nothing in particular.
> 
> ...


the idea is new in the way that I am using a Landscape phot manip method to make a spider feel huge rather than just look huge or print huge.

and the new idea is having the separated depth of feilds by complete out of focus.

If you REALLY want me to I can do the same thing and have everything in focus.

I'm so glad you werent denying the existance of high number  F-stops.
Shfeew

thanks for sharing. I remember all photos I ever see.
and will be looking at your gallary.

for an idea of my photography skills. i guess. this one was not edited. other than size  and is printable as large as 13 by 20

it is not a maximizing photo, only used 210 mm focal length out of 300 being max. it is a 0.25 inch A anax

100 ISO using  F 45  and 1 second exposure and with far less chromatic aboration.
but quite possibly more general aboration. photo is mor or less a demonstration.


----------



## Morro_Narcissa (Nov 25, 2006)

I'll offer something new here and just say, hey, nice photo.


----------



## Gwegowee (Nov 25, 2006)

this image is not about This spider. which would warrant a photo with a single depth of feild, a standard background and forground. but its not. its about Fear and panic, producing an anxiety, nervousness, and confusion, its supposed to adgitate you, throw you off ballance and maybe even disturb you.

At first when I heard all of your comments.. I was almost dissapointed. but after thinking about it more... I am quite proud of my work and the effect that it has had on everyone. it has done exactly what it was intended for.

I'll explain
You!  the Viewer... are being put into a scenario. (a scenario that spiders often encounter with humans). your about to be killed by this Massive creature. in a panic you Can not seem to Focus. you get a tunnel vision. or splotted vision everything else goes blury. thats where the completely different and arguing depth of feilds comes in. it was intended. which is also a reference to paintings sculpture and architecture of the Manerism era, which broke ALL the rules. This makes you question the artist in skills, tallents and worth.

Architects like the famous Giulio Romano and his Palazzo de Te... "What The ___ was wrong with the person who build this thing? I dont think this will stand for a year. its going to fall apart any minute." it has been standing for almost 500 hundred years now.
note  if you dont want to hear about all the ancient artists skip the a few examples but I encourage you to read a few.

Ex:    Sculpters like Benvenuto Cellini among others made human figures with bad proportions and twisting of the human body. in his Genius of Fontainebleau "her head is too small and the neck not centered on the shoulders, legs are too long, ankles too thin and feet too small.. if she stands up.. shes going to break her ankles."

Ex:   painters just the same like Jacopo Da Pontormo with the Descent from the Cross "there is no depth in the picture no background and very little foreground not even a cross from which christ decends... and HOW can you hold up a dead body while standing on the ends of your toes, no muscles flexing a guy is wearing pink... and what is everyone standing on... anything?" 

Ex:   and and Parmigianino and his Madonna with the Long Neck. which has So much more, to explain, you dont even want to hear it. but if you want to just search google.

Ex:   even Michalangelo (that is the famous Michalangelo Buonarroti that everyone knows of)...  did this with paintings, sculpture and Architecture.
in the tomb of Giulinao de Medici.
"Night (a nude woman fugure) looks like a man with breast implants but with a female face, and whats up with Giuliano de Medici (the Man being imortalized at his grave) hisneck is too long, he looks like a snake, can the human neck even turn that far? the face is of a pretty boy and the body of a warrior."

Ex:    and then there is the other Michalangelo, less heard of but still quite well known... Michalangelo Caravaggio... one of my faves... in Conversion of Saint Paul "A horses Ass does not belong in the church." was taken down, but by popular demand was put back up and still hangs in the chapel.  search for him and you just may see the similarities/refferences to specifically him in my own work.

Closing my bible: that is... one of my 12 Lb Art History books.  UGH!

In their time these artists Proved that they were artists and yet questioned all art and rules... what Is art? What isn't art? everything is art.
Why does it have to be this way? whats with the canons of proportion and color and everything? is there any point? Why... Why... and why?
and came to thier own concluseions "I am the artist, I'll decide how to do it, I'll do what I want, and you will pay me for it... in advance!"

I'm asking the same questions.
am pushing your buttons. with today's own canons in art and photography.


----------



## Tegenaria (Nov 25, 2006)

Gwegowee said:


> I believe everyone is an artsit... they just dont know it.


Only if they want to be, artistry is deliberate, not accidental. Everyone can be artistic in a way yes but they dont have to be. I like my photography to be artistic if i have the time,(have a few on my website)  but i also take snaps.
BTW, a macro lens neednt be expensive. The one I have (Vivitar 100mm f3.5)would cost about £100 new, and gives good results(I got it for free from a friend)


----------



## becca81 (Nov 25, 2006)

Tegenaria said:


> Only if they want to be, artistry is deliberate, not accidental. Everyone can be artistic in a way yes but they dont have to be. I like my photography to be artistic if i have the time,(have a few on my website)  but i also take snaps.
> BTW, a macro lens neednt be expensive. The one I have (Vivitar 100mm f3.5)would cost about £100 new, and gives good results(I got it for free from a friend)


"Everyone is an artist" in the same way that "everyone is a scientist" and "everyone is a mathematician."


----------



## Tegenaria (Nov 25, 2006)

not sure what you mean there Becca.


----------



## Gwegowee (Nov 25, 2006)

becca81 said:


> "Everyone is an artist" in the same way that "everyone is a scientist" and "everyone is a mathematician."


hahaha

thats an interesting statement..
but (for the lack of a better phraise) your thinking inside the box.

I've said this before and I'll say it again.
no matter how much you think you are not an artist it doesn't really matter what you think. it doesn't really matter what I think about it. it doesn't even matter what anyone else thinks.
the fact is people make things, people do things. People STRIVE to be good at something. its a need for satisfaction. is making swords an art? is a gunsmith an artist? or like you say... a mathematician? or a scientist?

if you dont think of your job as an art or even part of your job as an art, then you probably wont get go very far with it, or you may not get to be satisfied in life. you may not think of the word "art" for say but hear me out....

a Mathematician trys to make his work Perfect in every way. not necessarily in how it looks or sounds as in drawing painting sculpture architecture or music... but the end result it is desired to be exactly or as close to the right answer as possible. a scientist wants to take the best photos with the highest detail in order to find the answers s/he wants to find. have the perfect conditions for a feild test or an experiment.

if your work doesn't become an art to you then what? well you wont like your job very much, and you end up wanting to quit.

say you dont like your job so much but you keep it anyways...
I believe that there is still that one something in everyones life that they MUST make perfect in every way, but might not be able to make the money off of it. People just need that self worth... its in our nature.

for alot of people here... working with arachnids or invers is an art.
Arachnology is not art for say.  but it becomes an art to the Arachnologist.
and Thus Everyone is an artist.


----------



## becca81 (Nov 25, 2006)

Tegenaria said:


> not sure what you mean there Becca.


Pretty much, even though on different levels, everybody truly is an artist, mathematician, scientist, etc.


----------



## Vys (Nov 25, 2006)

I think what she means is 'not really'. Artistry is a bit more subjective than mathematics and most science, after all.

Edit. Did I take a hundred years to write that or did this third page hide from my vision?

 Edit2. Speaking of artistry- I found your avatar very pretty Becca, until I noticed the gloves :/


----------



## becca81 (Nov 25, 2006)

Vys said:


> I think what she means is 'not really'. Artistry is a bit more subjective than mathematics and most science, after all.
> 
> Edit. Did I take a hundred years to write that or did this third page hide from my vision?


Yes and no.  What I mean is what I said - all of us are artists, mathematicians, and scientists (among other things).  It just depends on how deep we choose to delve into those fields that is the difference.


----------



## Vys (Nov 25, 2006)

becca81 said:


> Yes and no.  What I mean is what I said - all of us are artists, mathematicians, and scientists (among other things).  It just depends on how deep we choose to delve into those fields that is the difference.


I prefer to think of those labels in terms of specialists: when someone is markedly better at a discipline than many others, he or she could be considered a specialist: mathematician, artist, scientist. The line is of course variable, depending on other people around you. 
The rest fit neatly into 'using mathematics', etc.

Still, art in particular is..controversial.


----------



## Gwegowee (Nov 25, 2006)

becca81 said:


> Yes and no.  What I mean is what I said - all of us are artists, mathematicians, and scientists (among other things).  It just depends on how deep we choose to delve into those fields that is the difference.


yes...   and what I mean to say.. is
we are All our own Artist's at a very high level... even if you are a scientist at heart and work. Science IS your art/Science is YOUR art!


----------

