• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

There's no place for Macro, Flora, Fungi, etc.

Mike Spinak

pro member
There's no Photography Discussions Sub-Forum appropriate for close-up photography, nor plant photography, nor fungi photography, nor ice crystal photography, etc.

Stuff like this passiflora tendril...

passifloratendril1.jpg


...comprises a lot of the photography I do. I imagine there must be lots of others, here, too, who also photograph the little things in life.

Is there any chance of a home at OPF for display, and discussion of techniques, of these types of photography?

Thank you for your consideration.

Mike

www.mikespinak.com
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Mike,

Thanks for pointing this now obvious error!

That plant by the way grows those tendrils even before it has something to grab on?

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." So we should, perhaps, change the name to be "Macro & Microphotography, Nature, Science & Medicine": "Flowers and bees to pollen, fungi, skin, eyes, mouths and moths, cells and materials."

You opinion is of importance! We want everyone who has similar interest to easily locate their fora.

I have a sepecial delight for you to appear! I believe that this area should be highlighted. also special lenses, lighting and technics need to be discussed. We would invite you to let others know of our interest.

Also the end products and where they fit in, be it art, editorial, scientific or whatever, we want to cover the entire chain form "Intent to Print".

Again, welcome.

Asher


Mike Spinak said:
There's no Photography Discussions Sub-Forum appropriate for close-up photography, nor plant photography, nor fungi photography, nor ice crystal photography, etc.

Stuff like this passiflora tendril...

passifloratendril1.jpg


...comprises a lot of the photography I do. I imagine there must be lots of others, here, too, who also photograph the little things in life.

Is there any chance of a home at OPF for display, and discussion of techniques, of these types of photography?

Thank you for your consideration.

Mike

www.mikespinak.com
 
Last edited:

Mike Spinak

pro member
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:

926334-lg.jpg


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!

Again, welcome.

You're very kind. I appreciate your welcome, and I'll try to be a worthy contributor.

Mike

www.mikespinak.com
 
Last edited:

Nill Toulme

New member
Would it make more sense to expand the other existing forum to "Landscape, Wildlife, Nature & Travel?" Does "Nature" cover your milieu adequately? Would the photographer who makes giant blow-ups of teenyweeny bugs mind sharing space with the one doing desert landscapes?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Well thanks Nil for the suggestion and Mike for the education!

I have visited your website and enjoyed what I saw. Having regular discussions can be encouraging to actually produce more. You have a lot to offer and I hope the sharing here will bring a lot of pleasure to other photographers and also help your own work.

I would say this, if we can make a commitment to spread the word, facilitate and encourage this art discipline, which has it's unique challenges, I'd go for a separate forum.

Asher
 

Mike Spinak

pro member
Asher,

I'm glad you enjoyed my website. I apologize that it is still in such an incomplete state, with so little to see. I welcome you to come back, again, at a later date, when the site is more developed.

I'll be happy to facilitate and encourage close up photography through participation in a close-up photography forum. I don't really have any idea how to spread the word, nor whom to spread it to... but I'll try to help with doing so.

Mike

www.mikespinak.com
 

Daniel Harrison

pro member
Yes, Macro please

I love macro, and as soon as I buy my lens back I am going to get back into it. Hopefully we will soon have somwhere to discuss it here!

2550mini-sweet_as.jpg
 

Mike Spinak

pro member
Daniel,

That's a lovely shot. Please be aware that, until you can buy your lens back, there are a number other ways to get in close, and/or get your subject large in the frame, without too high of a cost. One way is to put an extension tube on one of the lenses you do have. Another way is to add teleconverters to the lenses you do have. These two methods can also be combined. A third way is to attach one of your lenses backward onto the front of another one of your lenses... there's a screw-on device, like the way that a filter screws on to the front of your lens, that will allow you to do this. Another possibility is "pin hole" photography, which allows you to get close, with lots of depth of field, at fairly low prices.

It's a bit much to get into, here, but I suggest you look for John Shaw's book Closeups In Nature, to get more information.

I look forward to seeing more of your macro pics.

Cheers,

Mike
 

Daniel Harrison

pro member
Yes, I am aware of those nice cheat tips for a macro lens :) But I like 1:1 macro. If I turn my lens backwards I loose DOF controll, so I will probably get the 105mm sigma for about $330. I think it is worth it! Of course if I could justify it I'd like to have a mp-e 1-5x life size - that would be sooo cool! If you can't get a macro lens the above tips are great!
 

Michael Brown

New member
Yes, ... a Flora/Macro type forum would be ideal!
Also, if this site takes off, and I hope that it does, you will probably find yourself at a later date seperating Landscape and Wildlife from each other too.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

Ray West

New member
Hi Mike,

This message is a test,
on many fronts/fonts.

1) to check out the features of the reply text box
2) to see if I can upload an image
3) see what said image looks like
4) to try and discover what it is actually an image of
5) to see if every topic I comment on in this 'look feel vibe' place gets closed pretty quick
6)
to say I agree with you.
7) How about small, non biological things?

Here is, hopefully the image - taken in 2002 with a nikon 5MP p&s

You will have to wait for the image, I will have to rtfm, since I can't attach it.


Best wishes,

Ray

edit - I guess images have to be linked - attachments not possible????
 
Last edited:

Michael Brown

New member
Fixing to head out the door for a day of shooting, so I got to hurry.
Have e-mailed Don about the attachment problem.
Could be a browser thing, because I keep getting a message that I have loaded a maximum of 1 file, and there is no other means of attaching a image within the posts.

Gotta go,
Mike
 

Mike Spinak

pro member
Hi, Ray,

2) to see if I can upload an image

The way that I got my images to display here was by clicking on the little icon of a mountain with a yellow sky and rising sun, above the form field that I type posts into, then entering the URL of where I had my picture hosted on another site.

I look forward to seeing your pictures.

5) to see if every topic I comment on in this 'look feel vibe' place gets closed pretty quick

I'm not sure why it would, but I guess we'll see.

7) How about small, non biological things?

In my original post to this thread, I mentioned ice. This is just one example, but I definitely have an interest in close-ups that includes the non-biological:

S1297_frozenpuddle2.jpg


I hope and expect that any close-up forum that comes from this discussion will be inclusive of non-biological subjects, such as the one shown here.

Mike

www.mikespinak.com

P.S. I may not have internet access for the next couple days. We'll see how well this forum can be used from a Treo phone.
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
The ice is a necessay part of any equation: macro, scotch, "breaking the ice", climbing, melting as in socials, melting as in glacier loss, cave as in Lex Luther, melting as in spring run off.

Who would have thought that this Anglo-Saxon "3 letter word" could be so rich. Not as rich as 4 letter words, but still pretty impressive, to me at least.

Looking forward to more such pictures of small structures and insights into the self assembly!

Also how does it change with different lighting?

Asher
 

Ray West

New member
Hi Asher,

Also how does it change with different lighting?

I guess in flash, its slightly blue, in flourescent its green, in tungsten it melts

Best wishes,

Ray
 

Mike Spinak

pro member
It looks like this forum can be used without any issues from a smart phone running a Palm OS.

Looking forward to more such pictures of small structures and insights into the self assembly!

Asher,

I find the particular piece of ice shown above especially fascinating and bewildering (in terms of how it self-assembled) because it has two completely different types of patterns overlaid upon each other and through each other. It may be a bit hard to see on a small jpeg on screen, but, it has the same type of curvy, concentric pattern visible in this ice formation below...

frozenpuddle1.jpg


...but, additionally, it has the triangular pattern on top of it and running through it. (In the small jpeg on screen, the curvy pattern is most easily seen on the right side, about half-way up, though it actually runs through the entire formation.) So, there's at least twice as much to puzzle over with the top one as the already-intriguing bottom one.

I do have some guesses about how they formed, but perhaps I should let you enjoy the mystery, and make some conjectures of your own, for a few hours, before I state mine.

Also how does it change with different lighting?

This was photographed in deep shade, with clear skies overhead. The clear skies overhead gave the picture a strong bluish cast (which I think fits well, here). There was just enough harshness to the light to give reflectivity which brought out the patterns, without so much reflectivity that only glare would be visible. The direction of the light, with the sun still fairly low in the sky during the mid-morning of a late Autumn day, also was integral to giving a sense of modelling to the details, making them as visible as possible. I was very fortunate to be able to photograph it in such ideal conditions.

Cheers,

Mike

www.mikespinak.com

P.S. The picture in this post was sent by lap-top, not by phone. It turns out that i do have internet access, after all. I can't send pictures by phone, because I don't store any pictures on my phone.
 
Last edited:

Mike Spinak

pro member
Thanks Asher!

By the way, to tell you the sizes of the stuff posted in this thread: The passiflora tendril and leaf tip picture is 1/2 life size on 35mm film, so the tendril was about two inches long, in real life. The first ice picture shown in this thread covers about 4x4 inches. The second ice picture is about 10 or 11 inches across, in the long dimension.

As a historical note, the second ice picture in this thread is the first picture I took, when I decided to give photography a try.

Mike

www.mikespinak.com

Edited to correct a miscalcuation of size.
 
Last edited:

Ray West

New member
After a bit of a struggle, i've now put ftp onto this pc, so I can upload images, instead of going across my nw and actually have to get off my *ss to go to nother pc.

I don't know if its worth it
parasite.jpg


I had downsized it for an attachment, still a bit big. Actual size about an inch or so across, a rose parasite I think, I did check, but can't now remember.

I have some video of ice, strange high build formation on some chicken wire - slight breeze, about half inch deep honeycomb. I may link to the video, if I can't get a decent frame or two from it.

Thanks for your tolerances...

Best wishes,

Ray
 
Top