True, I am, and this is the problem – not a huge choice of cheaper stuff… Although what there is is good.

Why are these things not ‘proper’ macro? What does that mean, and why’s it a problem?

I found this guide quite illuminating: http://bythom.com/qadmacro.htm
(it’s a little Nikoncentric but it explains the basics well)

Where is Barnes? I wanted to use them two pics what I done as the basis for a discussion on cam settings/technique….

Where is the bastard? 🙄

I wanted to use them two pics what I done as the basis for a discussion on cam settings/technique….

at least the 2nd one was sharp and in focus, if lacking in colour 🙁

Having said that about lens choice, there are shed loads of old Olympus OM lenses I can use with an adapter but I don’t get AF. It might not matter for Macro work tho, but I am worried about being able to MF without a split circle.

Most macro shooters tend to use manual focus anyway, moving the lens backwards and forwards, rathe than adjusting the focus ring.

EDIT; just read your post again – ignore!

Some “macro” shots:

This one is from a compact on “macro” focus setting

Common Dog Violet by stuartie_c, on Flickr

Whereas this is from an SLR with a Sigma EX DG f2.8 lens at almost 1:1. You’ll notice 31mm takes up the whole 25mm of the Sony APS-C sensor – view it full size to see just how much magnification you get! The lens will get down to true 1:1 but you need to be careful with lighting so that shadows from the lens body don’t impinge. Jesus – I’m such a geek.

53/365 by stuartie_c, on Flickr

Oh – manual focus, small-ish aperture for sufficient DoF and a tripod.

Grips: depends on how good the viewfinder is really. If I take my time I can focus with reasonable accuracy on my D80, despite the 0.94x viewfinder (and poor technique). As I understand it, AF is no use for true macro anyway and the DOF is generally so shallow that pressing the shutter too hard or just breathing will throw off your focus.

but you need to be careful with lighting so that shadows from the lens body don’t impinge.

moley doesn’t like them being called “shadows” so substitute “proximity vignetting”

at least the 2nd one was sharp and in focus, if lacking in colour

See? What a bastard. You have no soul, Barnes.

The point is, that you don’t need fancy auto settings that you seem to rely on, to create decent pics. In the first, I deliberately set a low shutter speed (1/4 sec or so, can’t remember) to blur the fast motion, and create a sort of abstract effect. Well, at least Poddy likes it.

In the second, I pre-focussed on a particular point, set me shutter speed fairly high to freeze the action, and pressed the shutter release just a fraction before the rider reached that point. I didn’t rely on the motor-drive approach just to get one good pic.

I’m happy with them, anyway. And I think they prove that good technique can negate the need for fancy schmancy kit; many auto settings on cams are to take away the need to actually have half a clue about technique. These still don’t compensate for having the ability to take decent pics though. The cam don’t take the pics; you do.

That second one was taken using some pretty minimal kit. Nikon FM2, 24mm lens. Spose the light-meter was the only concession to some form of electronic aid.

I find your arguments on threads like this quite amusing. Usually because you’re wrong. 😉

Elfred: I’m not sure about the first one to be honest. Not because of the blur itself, that’s all good, but because to my perception it looks like the blur is in the wrong direction (a bit in front of the rider and a bit vertical too).

Still way better than my stuff tho 😳

and create a sort of abstract rubbish effect

🙁

so much effort to so little benefit …

These still don’t compensate for having the ability to take decent pics though

which that isn’t!

Usually because you’re wrong

If adjusting your camera controls is creative then so is adjusting the contrast on your TV. There’s a gulf between skill or craft on one side and creativity on the other. The first time someone thought to pan a camera or use depth of field to draw attention to the subject, that was creative – now it’s just established technique.

PS in case anyone had any doubt about the matter Elfin and I are in fact the same person.

Sorry Simon but it is way more interesting than most of the photos I see on your bogtrotters collections, because it actually tries to convey something rather than just being a facsimile of the image.

Sorry Simon but it is way more interesting than most of the photos I see on your bogtrotters collections.

interesting but stupid ?

You can’t say it’s rubbish if others like it a lot. You can say that it’s not working for you… And yes I know that everything’s in your opinion, but your tone is really confrontational now when it doens’t need to be.

Anyway – looks like the OM mount macro lenses are not particularly cheap, and the adapter is flippin £90..

I agree re moving the camera – on super macro mode on my compact, I used to set the distance and then move the camera to get decent focus on the thing I wanted.

to my perception it looks like the blur is in the wrong direction (a bit in front of the rider and a bit vertical too).

Yes that’s a fair comment, and tbh like I said, I’m not all that fussed about it. I was trying something out, and it din’t really work for me quite as I’d hoped. I was trying to emulate stuff I’ve seen before, but discovered it’s a pretty tricky technique to master. Involved panning and keeping the cam moving while the shutter was open. Extremely difficult to keep it moving along one horizontal plane, at a completely constant speed, also at the same speed as he rider. But I think the overall effect has been achieved. What I din’t want was yet another boring technically perfect cycling pic.

If adjusting your camera controls is creative then so is adjusting the contrast on your TV.

“And this year’s prize for worst analogy goes to…”

So your argument is that letting an algorithm in a bit of electronics decide how your picture should look, based on the averages of other people’s images is somehow less happenstance and more creative than actively taking control of the image and making decisions about how it should look???

You can’t say it’s rubbish if others like it a lot.

I think you’ll find I can – but you’re not obliged to agree. To my mind it’s a failed practice shot.

What I din’t want was yet another boring technically perfect cycling pic.

in that case it’s a huge success 🙂

Barnes is now top on my list of people never to go to an art gallery with. Hell.. I thought I was a Philistine!

So your argument is that letting an algorithm in a bit of electronics decide how your picture should look, based on the averages of other people’s images is somehow less happenstance

good argument! However, whatever the camera grabs is just the first stage in the process of trying to render the scene satisfactorily.

“And this year’s prize for worst analogy goes to…”

to me it seems exact. Technique is a skill not creativity.

whatever the camera grabs is just the first stage in the process of trying to render the scene satisfactorily.

The first, but also the most important.

The thing is Barnes.. you have to understand that there is a world out there of which you know nothing. It’s called art.

You may not be able to understand it (I know I don’t) but you have to acknowledge it’s there 🙂

The first, but also the most important.

hah, wrong! It’s the 2nd and relatively trivial. The most important step takes place in the mind of the snapper 🙂

. It’s called art.

both my parents were artists so I have more respect for it than science, which is all I was fit for 🙁

And my repeated claims that technique is not creativity reflect that, and I’m wondering what turning dials and pressing buttons has to do with art and uplifting the soul ?

and create a sort of abstract rubbish effect

You are of course entitled to your opinion, and some of your views are quite interesting. And I agree, just because you have an opinion that differs from a consensus, doesn’t necessarily mean you are wrong.

But when it comes to photography, it seems you are bent on bing as deliberately contrary as possible, for reasons which I can’t really fathom. Praps you just like being a bastard. 😆

If you are going to rubbish and dismiss alternative techniques to your own, then your opinions will start to look a little worthless, especially if you also lack the technical know-how to do similar, or to be able to produce images which display your own unique view of the world.

You’re a competent recorder of visual facts. I’ve seen one or two ‘arty’ pics you’ve done, but tbh, for all your prolific picture taking, you produce little more than visual records, to a reasonable technical standard. Little more. You can of course prove me wrong on this, and I’d love you to, but your arguments against self-expression and individualistic interpretation of a scene are a bit crap really. To each their own, Simon; or would you rather we all followed your rules?

you produce little more than visual records, to a reasonable technical standard.

thanks, that’s exactly what I’m intending 🙂 I’m happy to leave art to those capable of it.

but your arguments against self-expression and individualistic interpretation of a scene are a bit crap really

but that’s just what I’ve been arguing for. Just because I don’t think that particular instance works doesn’t contradict the idea. But, the mastery of technique does not comprise self expression or individualism, a person could always produce perfectly exposed and lit photos which were entirely without character or interest.

or would you rather we all followed your rules?

I don’t have any, and you already knew that 🙂

actually I take that back, I have one rule of thumb:
“the rules are crap and a substitute for thought”

Does anybody remember this or this?
😆

Barnes, you tell us that your outpourings are simply your opinion.

So why are you trying to convince us that you’re right? Just let it go.

It’s perfectly possible to take good photos that are just documentary – you don’t have to mess about.

HOWEVER we are not wrong for taking krazy picture and liking them. Ok?

I don’t have any, and you already knew that

Yes you do; stick the cam on auto, have the motordrive on fast, hold the shutter button down… 😉

I think your comments could be taken more seriously, if you were to display a set of photographs showing your technical ability in all different aspects of photography, and then let others decide on wether or not your opinions are valid.

Instead, you waffle a lot, but don’t have owt to prove your point. We don’t know if you’re actually a technically accomplished photographer, because all we see are photos that are technically ok, that you’ve taken on auto.

Photos, to be perfectly honest, could be done on a compact, mostly. You owning a D300 is like having a top-end race bike to go down the shops on. Fine, up to you what you spend your money on, but don’t think just ‘cos you’ve got a nice cam that it makes you some sort of authority on photography. By your own admission, you’re not an artist, yet you see fit to dismiss art.

SFB is now available 24/7

Listen to him here!

good argument! However, whatever the camera grabs is just the first stage in the process of trying to render the scene satisfactorily.

Whereas I think that what the camera grabs should be, near as dammit, the finished article, the last stage of the process:
See or think of something to photograph
Decide how best to get the results you want
If you can’t get those results, learn or practice until you can
Set up the shot
Set the equipment
Line up the subject (eg wait for rider)
Take the pic

Done. (well maybe a bit of touching up at home)

Yes you do; stick the cam on auto, have the motordrive on fast, hold the shutter button down

I’d characterise that as a habit

HOWEVER we are not wrong for taking krazy picture and liking them. Ok?

I never said you were wrong. I just criticised rudeboy’s blurry shot.

We don’t know if you’re actually a technically accomplished photographer

that’s irrelevant. I’m arguing about the nature of creativity, not the mechanisms of exposure. I’m not making any claims for my own abilities.

I think your comments could be taken more seriously, if you were to display a set of photographs showing your technical ability

even wider of the point. One could be unable to hold a camera or blind but still understand the difference between creation and implementation.

you’re not an artist, yet you see fit to dismiss art.

exactly 100% wrong. I’m not dismissing art.

that it makes you some sort of authority on photography.

no, I think because I have a brain I can argue my point, but it appears not to be working as people keep attributing me with the opposite of what I say 🙁

Why do you insist that elfin’s picture IS rubbish, rather than saying you just don’t like it?

I’m gonna start posting some of my really weird shots I reckon…..

Whereas I thing that what the camera grabs should be, near as dammit, the finished article, the last stage of the process

well, you’re free to make that choice, but it seems like unnecessarily handicapping yourself! Remember, how you get there is irrelevent to everyone else, who only see or care about the end product.

hat’s irrelevant. I’m arguing about the nature of creativity, not the mechanisms of exposure. I’m not making any claims for my own abilities.

Earlier, you dismissed the selective use of Depth of Field. Which is a photographic feature that is manipulated to aid in the creation of an image the photographer wants to produce.

See, if you could prove that you understood the very creative processes which you dismiss so flippantly, then maybe we could take your opinion as that of someone who is skilled in picture taking, rather than just the rantings of some bloke who just uses a fancy cam on auto all the time.

Look, stop being a bastard; give me yer D300B, and get yerself a nice little compact.

hah, wrong! It’s the 2nd and relatively trivial. The most important step takes place in the mind of the snapper

🙄

IMO the two are tightly bound together in a dialogue. The “snapper” sees a subject that interests them and then must consider how to capture and convey that interesting aspect within an photograph. That means considering composition, lighting, timing, exposure and camera settings.

Consider these scenario:

“Oh that’s a cool tree. It looks kind of old and creepy. I’ll take a pic”

1: stick camera in auto. Result: a picture of a tree.

2: stick camera in auto, get low and wide so the tree towers over you. Result: a slightly creepier picture of a tree.

3: get low and wide then stop down the aperture and reduce the exposure to get a darker picture where the detail of the clouds looming over the tree add to the sense of foreboding. Maybe add a fill flash to bring out the texture of the gnarly bark. Result: a picture which captures the creepy feeling you were interested in.

By considering all the options 3 is more successful and creative than 1 or 2.

well, you’re free to make that choice, but it seems like unnecessarily handicapping yourself! Remember, how you get there is irrelevent to everyone else, who only see or care about the end product.

Which is why, young Jedi, you fail. 😉

I used to operate like you: photograph EVERYTHING several times in the hope of getting a shot, then go home and delete 400 out of 450 shots taken.
As I’ve learned what I like to shoot and the results I’m after, and how to achieve it, I’ve found I take less and less shots. Recently I’ve been asked to cover 3 events, purely because the organisers liked my stuff. Now THAT makes you think about your technique and every other aspect of what you’ve been asked to do in some great depth. Since then my hit rate has been something like 400 good shots out of 450, a complete reversal. And I’ve managed to make some money out of it too, which is nice. 🙂