Discussion in 'General Critical Analysis' started by gendarmee, Nov 3, 2007.
I just happened to find this nice looking dried leaf at the lawn and took a snap of it.
To my mind, this is no real "macro". It is a close-up.
And - if you want to bring out the detail, shape, texture, colours etc of a leaf such as this one, you must watch your background! Nothing may distract from your leaf. Nothing at all. It doesn't do to blur the background by using the camera's "macro" setting (which will open up your aperture so that the background gets blurred). Even a blurred background can distract ... and it does so here. Quite much so, actually. It severely competes with the leaf held in front of the camera.
An idea for next time (assuming you were to go to the same place and picked up the same leaf): hold the leaf so ONLY and exclusively the lawn is your background. Then you'd only have green against the brown of the leaf - the green blurred, the leaf in focus - and the leaf would very clearly be your subject. Make sure nothing else gets into your photo. How does that sound to you? Do-able?
Do you know what your fstop was?
i think this leaf would look great with a black background rther than the lawn.
keep snappin though
Remember that this is not just ANY of our galleries, this is the General Critical ANALYSIS. "Keep snappin though" is not quite the reply to be given in this specific forum. This is where we critcally analyse a submitted photo. And most unfortunately, these two do not pass any critical analysis. They are test snaps with the focus gone right onto the leaf, but that is all there is. Sorry about that, but ...
What sort of camera are you shooting with?
Also, this is not macro, regardless of what mode the camera was in. Macro requires that magnification be 1:1 or greater, which is not the case here.
A difference of interpretation, Max. Macro modes on digital cameras as in superzooms or point and shoots are really just close focus modes, not 1:1 despite the label. This leads to some confusion of terms.
A macro lens on a film or DSLR camera is more of a true macro.
i stand by my comment of keep snapping.
im sorry if encouraging people offends some people.
there are a lot of egos on this forum and some ......................................
................................................sorry i cant even be bothered to continue im too busy with my life
I understand that it can be misleading, but the actual term "macro" has a specific meaning that isn't really subject to interpretation. Most technical terms tend not to be.
Then how do you explain "macro" on the lens of digital superzoom that is not really a 1:1 macro according to the specific term?
The same way that I explain most semantically questionable marketing schemes.
It's an interesting test, but like LaFoto says you gotta have an interesting background and foregroun,d.
Separate names with a comma.