LP Multi Uber Ultra Macro photo.

[Gwegowee]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

 

[Gwegowee]

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]

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]

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]

not sure what you mean there Becca.

 

[Gwegowee]

"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]

not sure what you mean there Becca.

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

 

[Vys]

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]

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]

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]

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!