Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Post Your Best Macro
- Thread starter digitalrebelxt
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Chip NoVaMac said:
I just did a quick google search and found this I don't know anything about shops in the US. But it seemed pretty good to me. There's one on ebay at the moment that's still only $405 and that's Australian dollar, though it will probably shoot up there's still a day to go. But worth keeping an eye on.
(click for larger)
Sorry for the watermark. Click the image to see the photo without the large watermark.
dogbone said:
I will be US centric in my posts about pricing. In your first example Butterfly has a 6.4 rating. While B&H has a 9.2 rating at resellers.com. While my shop with a much more limited rating (since we don't actively court net sales) is at a 10.0 rating - based on a limited sample.
In the end, if you want price only there are places on the net to go. There always will be. But if you want to see what perhaps local support can do for you, then check out B&H. I can't say that my shop will meet or beat the B&H price. But I know that our service can perhaps exceed them.
One has to also be careful in particular with Nikon products. In order to get rebates or warranty service - the serial numbers have to be registered with Nikon USA at the port of entry. From what I have been told this is normal with many other manufactures also here in the US.
mnkeybsness said:
(click for larger)
Sorry for the watermark. Click the image to see the photo without the large watermark.
When posting images, there is little need for a "gross" watermark as you have used. As the image appeared on Safari, there was little concern of some one using the low res image for commercial purposes.
While I think that this image was a nice one, I will not click on the link. The size you posted wad more than enough to decide. You decided to spoil it.
Ah, good history lesson sir!Chip NoVaMac said:You have to understand that in the "old" days pre 1980's perhaps. That macro meant some where between 1/2 life size and life size on the film format by popular definition of the time.
Now we have zoom lenses that allow for close focusing (to a range of 1/2 or less). Prior to these "zooms", macro photographers used macro lenses from life size to less than life size.
Those that went to 1/2 to life size were limited. Lens manufactures latched on to those that were greater that 1/2 life size as a market to reach. Now today "macro" has a diluted meaning.
Hope this helps.
I was using it in more of a modern sense considering technology has definitely improved and it IS 2006 ya know...
That is, ASSuming the general "understood" meaning of the word has kept up with the times.
uberfoto said:Ah, good history lesson sir!
I was using it in more of a modern sense considering technology has definitely improved and it IS 2006 ya know...
I am old enough to remember the days that we needed close-up lenses or extension tubes to do "macro" work.
Even creative digital work can lead to some good macro work, as witnessed my by my "fake" macro work.
mnkeybsness said:
(click for larger)
Sorry for the watermark. Click the image to see the photo without the large watermark.
thats a very very very disturbing image
i just had breakfast too
I love looking at people's macros because there are many times where people capture everyday things and just amaze me everytime...
Chip NoVaMac: The watermark is automatic by my server. I can't change that unless I were to upload it separately, which I prefer not to do. I'm sorry to convenience you.
Moshiiii: Why does it piss you off? It is a part of nature. The bird was found this way and left untouched.
I'm also sorry that some people don't seem appreciate artistic photography as much here. This photo, along with a series of images similar to it, has won awards and received much praise in my local art world.
Sorry to come off a little snobbish, but isn't it generally the practice to give both negative AND positive comments/critiques and not just "this image just pisses me off"?
Moshiiii: Why does it piss you off? It is a part of nature. The bird was found this way and left untouched.
I'm also sorry that some people don't seem appreciate artistic photography as much here. This photo, along with a series of images similar to it, has won awards and received much praise in my local art world.
Sorry to come off a little snobbish, but isn't it generally the practice to give both negative AND positive comments/critiques and not just "this image just pisses me off"?
mnkeybsness said:
i thought it was disturbing, only cuz i love animals and it was the first thing i saw after eating breakfast.
virividox said:tuna
Well, there you go. When you said you love animals I didn't realise you meant you love to *eat* them.
i know theres a double standard when it comes to animals as pets vs animals as food. just cuz i eat some animals it doesnt mean i like to see dead bleeding animals. i dont doubt the artistic merit of the shot, just not the nicest thing to see in the morning.
mnkeybsness said:
Surely it's not necessary to have such a huge and obtrusive watermark?! Good grief! Frankly, I don't think anyone is going to be eager to steal this particular image anyway....
Not sure what your purpose was in taking this shot and displaying it; personally I find it to be disturbing and without any particular artistic merit. It is unnecessarily graphic and IMHO not really appropriate for sharing on here, especially without warning.
ETA: ah, I see I'm not the only one who was disturbed by this!
Clix Pix said:
if you read the thread prorperly, you will see that the watermark is placed automatically by the hosting server.
as for your comments on the shot, who are you to judge whether it has artistic merit or not. perhaps it was used for a campaign to fight creulty against animals. perhaps it was the artists study on death. without knowing more you shouldnt make such brash statements. i personally dont like the image and it upset me when i first saw it. but i dont think you should attack the poster and put down his work.
virividox said:
I posted prior to reading the remainder of the thread.
If you'll read my post carefully, you'll note that I said:
"personally I find it to be disturbing and without any particular artistic merit." (Added italics to emphasize the key word here.) It is not necessary to know the artist's intent or the way in which he was intending to use the image -- the image itself tells a story, a graphic and disturbing story. I expressed my subjective opinion on this particular piece, which was not "attacking the poster and putting down his work." Sheesh! Perhaps this is what the artist was intending -- to shock and horrify viewers here? If so, after reading the other posts in this thread, it looks as though he achieved that end.