Hi, Asher,
Thanks for pointing this now obvious error!
You're welcome, of course. If it is helpful, I'm glad.
That plant by the way grows those tendrils even before it has something to grab on?
Yes, most plants that throw tendrils will do so regardless whether there is anything nearby to entwine. By the way, this is the type of plant that produces passion fruit, and also produces passion flowers.
My initial naming had macro and microscopic under "Documentation", where in general, unlike fashion, news etc, we are using very specialized technic to get macro and micro information that is superaccurate.
This became "Medical-Forensic-Scientific-Legal-etc."
In my view, documentary macrophotography and documentary photomicroscopy are significantly different from what I do and what I had in mind. I try to be authentic, simply out of a sense of appreciating real nature and wanting to share and communicate that appreciation with others. But beyond verisimilitude, I make no pretense at being documentary. My pictures are highly personal and interpretive, because I am making "fine art", to be marketed and sold as such. People who are making documentary photographs are engaged in an endeavor that is primarily journalistic, where clarity and completeness take priority over interpretation and artistic meaning. For example, in the picture shown, I include just the very tip of passiflora leaf, because that fit in best with my composition, toward my expressive ends. If I'd been trying to make a superaccurate, documentary picture of this, for use as a reference for botanical science, I probably would have included the entire leaf structure. For that matter, I probably would have snipped the whole thing, and brought it into a studio setting, where I'd photograph it with even, front light; instead, I photographed it on-scene, as found, making use of the natural, angled back-lighting which I found to be aesthetically pleasing. Many of the small subjects I photograph would probably never have been photographed, if my purposes were of a documentary nature, such as this:
You should arrange your forums as you feel best, and should not be unduly pressured by my input, but, if you were to take my input: Close-up photography, of the artsy nature photographer type, doesn't fit in well with documentary medical, forensic, and legal photography. Their purposes are different, and placing them together is arbitrary and somewhat nonsensical.
Of course, I am sure everyone can ultimately get along fine, if need be, but I think placing them together would lead to an uneasy coexistence between those who shoot wildflowers and such, and those who shoot necrotic tissue, parameciums, buboes, entry wounds, genital lesions, blood splatter patterns, and so on.
Besides having different purposes, I think that the equipment and technique for someone who shoots nature in the field with natural light has little overlap with the equipment and technique for someone who shoots stained slides under a microscope, with ultraviolet light.
To be sure, the two occasionally meet, but I think close-up nature photography is basically a different discipline than scientifically-oriented documentary photomicroscopy.
As an aside, on this subject: My ex is a physician, and I often audited her lectures, and studied her textbooks with her. Some of her textbooks contained photographic horrors burned into my mind that I wish I'd never seen, and wish I could forget. I would be very cautious, perhaps even reluctant, to open someone's thread about medical and forensic photography. That's probably silly, and may not speak too well to my character, but it is an honest expression of the way I feel.
I have a sepecial delight for you to appear!
You're very kind. I appreciate your welcome, and I'll try to be a worthy contributor.
Mike
www.mikespinak.com