Post Your Best Macro

[Clix Pix]

Here is a macro I took a few weeks ago with my lensbaby and macro attachment.

I love the colors in this! Orange is one of my favorite colors....

Have to say, though, that I'd really prefer to see more of the primary flower in sharp focus with the remainder in the soft focus. This kind of effect can be achieved by using certain lenses and controlling the depth-of-field, but I'm not familiar enough with the lensbaby to know exactly to what extent the DOF and other elements can be controlled. The lensbaby is a neat device but I suspect that it really has limited applications and that sometimes what it does is not really what works well for a given subject.

 

[Clix Pix]

Haven't gotten much into macro work as of yet. But attached is an image that I will say is a fake macro..

Love what you did with this, Chip! Fantastic and very creative! This shows how one can do something really neat with an ordinary -- or not so ordinary -- image, taking it beyond the usual....

 

[Blong]

Haven't gotten much into macro work as of yet. But attached is an image that I will say is a fake macro...

I like it - the texture and tones appeal to me.

Blong, you are making me want to go out and get the macro set for my Lensbaby.

Take the plunge and get the macro kit. Doesn't cost much and it's lotsa fun. Focus is difficult (particularly with wide apertures), but that's just the baby. One of the fun things about the lensbaby is the simple and relatively inexpensive attachments/modifications that can be used to create unique effects.

I like this, I wish it had more DOF and in sharp area, but I guess with a Lensbaby that won't be happening.

I love the colors in this! Orange is one of my favorite colors....

Have to say, though, that I'd really prefer to see more of the primary flower in sharp focus with the remainder in the soft focus. This kind of effect can be achieved by using certain lenses and controlling the depth-of-field, but I'm not familiar enough with the lensbaby to know exactly to what extent the DOF and other elements can be controlled. The lensbaby is a neat device but I suspect that it really has limited applications and that sometimes what it does is not really what works well for a given subject.

Thanks for the comments.

This is actually a fairly sharp shop for a lensbaby macro. The DOF is extremely reduced with the macro attachments and focus can become very tricky. The lensbaby apertures are a series of disks with different sized holes in them that are dropped in in front of the lens and held in place with magnets. The smaller the aperture, the more subtle the blur around the edges, and (obviously) greater DOF. However, the aperture disks supplied only go up to f8. This pic was taken with a custom made aperture with a 4mm dia hole that I estimate to be around f16 (could be f11). Made focusing a bit easier.

I've been using the LB2.0 virtually exclusively since October last year. All my macro shots have been with the baby as I don't have any other lenses with a macro facility. I agree that there are many situations where the lensbaby may not be appropriate, but at the moment I'm still exploring and using it in virtually all circumstances - when shooting for myself. When the novelty wears off, I'll probably start swapping lenses around more - however, after 6 months or so, I don't think I'm getting bored yet.

Funny thing - over at http://www.lensbabies.com there were a few comments about getting too sharp with the custom aperture and loosing too much lensbaby blur .

Cool.

 

[jared_kipe]

I've been using the LB2.0 virtually exclusively since October last year. All my macro shots have been with the baby as I don't have any other lenses with a macro facility. I agree that there are many situations where the lensbaby may not be appropriate, but at the moment I'm still exploring and using it in virtually all circumstances - when shooting for myself. When the novelty wears off, I'll probably start swapping lenses around more - however, after 6 months or so, I don't think I'm getting bored yet.

Funny thing - over at http://www.lensbabies.com there were a few comments about getting too sharp with the custom aperture and loosing too much lensbaby blur .

Cool.

For the cost of the lens baby 2 and macro kit you could get a real macro lens though. If you really like macro work nothing is better than a dedicated macro lens. Like the Sigma 50mm 105mm or Tamron 90mm (or Sigma 150 is you feel like it), maybe look for a used Sigma 50mm?

 

[Clix Pix]

I think for me the problem with using something specialized like a Lensbaby for ALL of one's photos is that then it becomes "old-hat" and not so unique anymore, not so different or interesting. In a gallery, I like to see a nice variety of shots, not all the same thing done in the same way. The same applies to any specialty lens -- it would get "old" real fast looking at an entire gallery filled with fisheye shots taken with a super-wide fisheye lens.

If I were to buy a fisheye lens or a Lensbaby, sure, I'd use them and have fun with them but I would be careful not to overdo it and would not present all of my images with just these specialized tools. Ditto for IR. I'm thinking of eventually having my D70 converted to an IR camera and then that will be a new avenue to explore, but I can guarantee that not every photo I shoot or that is in my galleries would be IR!

I agree with Jared that if you like shooting macro, you really should look into purchasing a good new or used macro lens for your camera, too, and use that as well as your beloved Lensbaby.

 

[Blong]

For the cost of the lens baby 2 and macro kit you could get a real macro lens though. If you really like macro work nothing is better than a dedicated macro lens. Like the Sigma 50mm 105mm or Tamron 90mm (or Sigma 150 is you feel like it), maybe look for a used Sigma 50mm?

Not really that much into macro - never was before I got the lensbaby macro kit.

In any case, I think that only a used Sigma would be less (or the same price) as a lensbaby 2 and macro kit here in Australia.

Maybe one day.

Cool.

Rob

 

[Applespider]

Haven't gotten much into macro work as of yet. But attached is an image that I will say is a fake macro. It was done on my Rebel XT with the Tamron 28-75 at its closest focusing distance. But was not enough, so I over res'd it in PS. I like how it turned out.

Great shot - I love the shapes in it and the colour. Would be fabulous blown up to a canvas print - I've seen many worse for sale!

 

[Blong]

I think for me the problem with using something specialized like a Lensbaby for ALL of one's photos is that then it becomes "old-hat" and not so unique anymore, not so different or interesting. In a gallery, I like to see a nice variety of shots, not all the same thing done in the same way. The same applies to any specialty lens -- it would get "old" real fast looking at an entire gallery filled with fisheye shots taken with a super-wide fisheye lens.

If I were to buy a fisheye lens or a Lensbaby, sure, I'd use them and have fun with them but I would be careful not to overdo it and would not present all of my images with just these specialized tools. Ditto for IR. I'm thinking of eventually having my D70 converted to an IR camera and then that will be a new avenue to explore, but I can guarantee that not every photo I shoot or that is in my galleries would be IR!

Point taken. However I find that there is a fair bit of variation with the lensbaby particularly when playing with different sized and shaped apertures, wide and tele converters etc.

This also has A LOT to do with personal taste.

So far i'm not bored with it - I'm not a pro and I don't have gallery, I'm not selling my lensbaby shots to anyone but if someone likes them, then that's great. If friends ask me to take some shots for them, I use a "normal" lens and throw in a few lensbaby shots for fun.

But at the moment, when I'm shooting for myself, it's the lensbaby all the way .

 

[jelloshotsrule]

Great shot - I love the shapes in it and the colour. Would be fabulous blown up to a canvas print - I've seen many worse for sale!

yeah, i could see it almost as a painting... might be neat to use some software to work it up into a painting style, just for fun. studio artist, or whatever.

that would look pretty sweet.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Thanks for the compliments on the image folks. Actually I have printed it out on MediaStreet Plush, and it has a watercolor feel to the final image. Have to give some thought to a canvas print.

 

[Applespider]

On a P&S so really tough to get any DoF to it - also the lighting wasn't ideal!
However, I quite like it and I'm tempted to try to improve the lighting in Photoshop (suggestions welcome!) and perhaps use it as my Easter card next year.

 

[jared_kipe]

On a P&S so really tough to get any DoF to it - also the lighting wasn't ideal!
However, I quite like it and I'm tempted to try to improve the lighting in Photoshop (suggestions welcome!) and perhaps use it as my Easter card next year.

Its the opposite, you have too much DOF on a P&S cause they use super wide angle lenses like 10mm and thus medium apertures like 5.6 have can go from like 1m to infinity.

 

[virividox]

60 2.8 nikon
lazy to look at the exif for settings

 

[cgratti]

Here is a great Canon forum with lots of imformative people to share ideas with. You dont even need to be shooting a Canon camera to feel wanted...


http://photography-on-the.net/forum/

 

[iBlue]

Took this last year:

<snip awesome image that I want full res of>

D70s, f/5.6, 1/500 sec, 130mm

What is that? I love the colors. (awesome images in here, you people are inspiring)

 

[Clix Pix]

What is that? I love the colors. (awesome images in here, you people are inspiring)

Thanks, iBlue! It's a piece of bark peeling from a tree, with the sun hitting it just the right angle to make it glow and to capture that nice edge.... It's one of my favorite images, too. I love shooting in macro and I really like to have fun with abstracts.....

Here's a more recent one I shot a few weeks ago:

D200 60mm Micro f/10 1/250 sec ISO 100

...And another:

D200 60mm f/20 1/180 sec ISO 800

 

[iBlue]

Thanks, iBlue! It's a piece of bark peeling from a tree, with the sun hitting it just the right angle to make it glow and to capture that nice edge.... It's one of my favorite images, too. I love shooting in macro and I really like to have fun with abstracts.....

Here's a more recent one I shot a few weeks ago:
<img>
D200 60mm Micro f/10 1/250 sec ISO 100

...And another:
<img>
D200 60mm f/20 1/180 sec ISO 800

I love them, especially the first one with the blue and yellow. The bark image is absolutely stunning; there's something about those colors.

I know absolutely nothing about photography - perhaps this is why it seems almost magical to me. ("how'd they do that?" kinda thing) I'm intrigued and really inspired by it all.

thanks for all the oooooohs and aaaaaahs

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I love them, especially the first one with the blue and yellow. The bark image is absolutely stunning; there's something about those colors.

I know absolutely nothing about photography - perhaps this is why it seems almost magical to me. ("how'd they do that?" kinda thing) I'm intrigued and really inspired by it all.

thanks for all the oooooohs and aaaaaahs

I agree. If Clix was interested in selling these, they have high potential for her to do large format prints of them. Meaning greater than 17x17 inch.

IIRC, Clix shared these in another thread here.

I hope that I do not offend Clix or any others here. These two images (perhaps the last one with some "selective" cropping, would be great candidates for a photographic "vagina monologue". They were at the same point beautiful, yet suggestive.

That is not a bad thing IMO. There have been many photographers like Maplethorpe that took to this theme. I also remember a "ceramic" theme based on the Last Supper.

In what I know of Clix, I am not sure how she meant these two images. But what I know of Clix personally, I applaud these two images on how ever she meant them to be.

She may have not seen them as I have, and given what she knows about me - I should care less.

I am one that feels that photographic images should be intimate, meaning smaller. But I also se that there are images that demand to be be giant (super) sized, in order to be enjoyed. These two have that quality.

I know that if I saw these two at the National Woman's Museum here in DC, I would have taken notice. I know it sounds trite for the personal "accolades" that Clix and I have shared in threads here for each other at times.

From what I do know of Clix, I doubt IMO that she meant it the way I viewed it. eek: Boy, will it be awkward when we see each other. ).

But to be blunt, one has to only to look at the "popular" term of "de-flowering" - in order to better understand these two images coming from a woman photographer.

Sorry for going on - but I feel that I have dug a hole that I can't get out of. For IMO it takes a certain art perspective to perhaps see what was truly meant.

I know I feel the same about some of the photographs that I have taken over the years. Some missed the point when I had a "message" - and some missed the point when I did not.

 

[Glenn Wolsey]

 

[iBlue]

I agree. If Clix was interested in selling these, they have high potential for her to do large format prints of them. Meaning greater than 17x17 inch.

IIRC, Clix shared these in another thread here.

I hope that I do not offend Clix or any others here. These two images (perhaps the last one with some "selective" cropping, would be great candidates for a photographic "vagina monologue". They were at the same point beautiful, yet suggestive.

That is not a bad thing IMO. ....

I completely agree (on all counts) and appreciate that you brought it up. I actually saw the same thing in those images, however that's no surprise coming from me. They really are beautiful.

 

[simie]

Theirs some really good macro shots on here now - Glenn, the Wasp in the web looks great - was it dead or just caught in the web?

 

[Glenn Wolsey]

Theirs some really good macro shots on here now - Glenn, the Wasp in the web looks great - was it dead or just caught in the web?

It was actually caught in the web, still trying to break free. I took this photo about 2CM from it.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I completely agree (on all counts) and appreciate that you brought it up. I actually saw the same thing in those images, however that's no surprise coming from me. They really are beautiful.

Thank you. Much like if others would see the "male" perspective in this image. Very phallic in some ways.

In some ways we approach images from different interpretations. How hard we are is dependent on our view.

As a Gay male, I think that I have a harder edge as viewed by my post. But as a Gay male who was once "straight", I can see much more in some other images by Clix.

But also one has to appreciate the historical context of how we view art. Is there any question as to as we use in modern times "de-flowering" of the female - meaning having sex?

Honestly, I am at a loss of understanding the same male concept. We just do not have the same value in giving up of the male power; as we do for the giving up of the female power. We never view the strong pistol of a flower as representing the male sexuality.

Is there some natural form in nature that "males" can identify in art?

 

[virividox]

i know the post said put only 1 up but, ill put another one

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

i know the post said put only 1 up but, ill put another one

I hope the OP will forgive you and the discussion that followed.

I like this as a stand alone image. But I also love it as an extension of what I was referring to. A larger print wold have great meaning IMO.