| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/31/2003 03:29:05 PM · #1 |
I'm starting to get more and more interested in Macro photography. What, in your opinion, makes an interesting macro? Is it about texture? Is it about contrasting elements? What are some good subjects, for suggestions?
|
|
|
|
07/31/2003 03:36:28 PM · #2 |
| I am a fan of macro shots, however I think they have a problem with creativity... because when you shoot a macro shot, it is the subject, just the subject, and more often than not it is of a flower, insect, or plant. That seems to be the three main macro shots. If you are going to get into macro, find a different angle or perspective to take the photo from. My first submission for round was of a Yellow Marigold (macro shot) and I regret submitting it because it was so uncreative. I actually posted this same comment in another forum, however I'll say it again: Anyone can take a macro shot, so you have to make it original. |
|
|
|
07/31/2003 03:40:10 PM · #3 |
I would say 'it depends'.
1. If your macro subject fills the frame then I would say lines, texture etc. With these you may not be able to tell what the object is.
2. If your macro subject is just an isolated item within the frame then I would say contrast between the subject and the background is one of the key things to look out for. Also, unrecognizable background (achieved through the manipulation of DOF) adds to the impact of these types of images.
Suggestions:
You probably have several objects around the house that you could use to experiment with. Pick something that you can take several (24 - 36, or more if your still coming up with new ideas) pictures of, experimenting with different apertures, distance to subject, angles of view, lighting etc. By concentrating on just one subject forces you to think about the characteristics of the subject such as texture, colour etc, rather than the subject itself. Also, by experimenting this way you develop your personal taste for what you like in a macro.
Message edited by author 2003-07-31 15:44:57. |
|
|
|
07/31/2003 03:45:01 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by PSUBecker:
I actually posted this same comment in another forum, however I'll say it again: Anyone can take a macro shot, so you have to make it original. |
I'm gonna argue this one with you. Macro photography takes more than just creativity or originality to make it stand out. And there is no reason why a "cliche" subject cannot be made into an outstanding macro. Sure, looking at things from a different angle will get the attention of a viewer, but it is control of focus and depth of field, as well as conquest of difficult lighting situations that will make a macro great.
As for creativity...who says that just because others have taken a similar photograph that yours is not creative? It is your own personal approach to a subject that will make it creative.
I didn't think your marigold was uncreative. I think, instead, that it suffered from some issues in focus and cropping.
Just my thoughts.
Shari
|
|
|
|
07/31/2003 04:54:25 PM · #5 |
Macro shots are just like any other shots as far as making them interesting. You need something to stand out, whether that's texture, color, strong lines, etc.
BTW, I agree that anyone can TAKE a macro shot. Whether the shot will be any good is a completely different matter. So many people can't achieve good focus, lighting, composition etc.
Look up some macros that you like on dpc and decide what it is that you like about them. Or look at macros that have done well in past challenges and try to figure out what it is that makes them successful.
I've entered a few macros, including my current garden shot, but I don't think there's any one thing that makes them interesting. |
|
|
|
07/31/2003 04:57:38 PM · #6 |
|
|
|
07/31/2003 04:59:19 PM · #7 |
good macros derive alot of their 'amazingness' by showing incredible detail in things that are difficult to see with the naked eye.
that's why bugs and flowers make good macros - organic objects by nature have a tremendous amount of physical complexity, that say, a macro of a button, might lack.
the SHARPER you can make your macro the more impact it will have.
on top of that, macros are just like any other picture when it comes to lighting and color. just because the objects are small doesn't mean they can't benefit from nice lighting, pleasing composition, and good choice of background, not to mention interesting angles of view, etc.
Message edited by author 2003-07-31 17:00:54.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2003 05:00:24 PM · #8 |
JD - those are cool. esp the 'Seeing Double'. what *is* that?
|
|
|
|
07/31/2003 05:08:20 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
JD - those are cool. esp the 'Seeing Double'. what *is* that? |
This shot is a little difficult to figure out...
I put a mirror on the ground in the backyard. A clear marble went on next, followed by the orange bottle. The bottle is reflected upside down in the mirror and rightside up in the marble, and the marble (with bottle reflection) is reflected in the mirror. I don't know why the marble reflection in the mirror is not upside down... I think I broke some laws of physics here... If all of time and space unravels, and the point of origin is Colorado Springs, then it's likely my fault! I'd like to shoot this again, but without the other distracting elements that can be seen in the marble. there are tree branches with leaves, my 3 year old, power lines, etc...
Message edited by author 2003-07-31 17:13:25.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2003 05:57:53 PM · #10 |
|
|
|
07/31/2003 09:09:31 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by conceptgraphics:
what's a macro? |
It is a closeup shot of a subject but the subject is magnified.
Lets say a shot of ant but when you view it, you can see all the curves the ant has on it body. |
|
|
|
07/31/2003 10:23:21 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Musicman:
Originally posted by conceptgraphics:
what's a macro? |
It is a closeup shot of a subject but the subject is magnified.
Lets say a shot of ant but when you view it, you can see all the curves the ant has on it body. |
You mean like these from my portfolio?
Baseball
Caterpillar
BananAppeal
Sorry, musicman. I was only kiddin'.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2003 11:06:19 PM · #13 |
If you guys don't mind, I would like to share my favorite macros. Macro is actually my favorite type of photography along with black & white. Anyway, here are my favorite from myt collection. I try not to shoot the traditional subjects.
Message edited by author 2003-08-01 00:30:35.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2003 08:07:36 PM · #14 |
| Robert, that second was nice. |
|
|
|
08/01/2003 08:39:51 PM · #15 |
Those were very good Robert. Here are a couple of mine - I'll be interested in any feedback:
|
|
|
|
08/02/2003 03:26:41 AM · #16 |
I've never known what a macro is, but now I do because of this thread. Thanks guys! It turns out that that is what most of my favorite pictures are, I just never knew what they were called.
So, now that I know what one is.... how do you take one with that much detail? Is there some special trick that I don't know about, or is it all dependant on the quality of your camera. I would really appreciate any incite anyone could contribute. Thanks! |
|
|
|
08/02/2003 03:59:50 AM · #17 |
Holy cow! What feedback on my comments. I agree, Macros CAN be creative, however often times I think they are of the same thing. The marigold I entered was just for the round challenge, I have many others that I would consider more creative than that one though. I like this one a lot:
Looking Out
I just think that if you are going to aim for a good macro, you should try to make it something original, or something that we aren't used to seeing. I think that, that is what makes it both unique and interesting. |
|
|
|
08/02/2003 04:29:33 AM · #18 |
Lot of good comments in this thread.
I agree that anyone can TAKE a macro - but then, anyone can TAKE a photograph. Digital cameras make it far easier to take reasonable macros than film cameras it seems.
But, just like any other photo, it takes more to take a good or excellent macro - you need to have the basics of sharpness and detail but then the same qualities come into play as with other types of photographs - colour, lighting, composition, etc.
Even average macros tend to be impressive, because they show you something you can't readily see with the naked eye. And, as somebody else pointed out, natural subjects are popular because they are readily available and inherently complex - the closer you go, the more you see. Manufactured articles don't have the same fractal nature.
But I would argue it takes as much time, effort, practise and skill (as well as equipment) to take a truly good macro as it does other types of shot, if not more.
For examples of what I consider to be good macros, take a look at the work of Mark Plonsky and read his article. It takes a lot of effort to take shots of this quality. John Shaw's work is pretty amazing too.
Just my 2p worth. |
|
|
|
08/04/2003 10:42:01 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Jon Lucas:
Those were very good Robert. Here are a couple of mine - I'll be interested in any feedback: |
Wow, I love how the spider looks like it's just floating there. Excellent pics Jon.
Pinback, thanks for the links. There's some good information there.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 11:36:01 AM EDT.
