LP Multi Uber Ultra Macro photo.

[Gwegowee]

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]

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

 

[Vys]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

Then think of it as a baby A. chalcodes.

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

 

[Gwegowee]

*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]

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

 

[ShadowBlade]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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