Clix Pix 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.)
You seem to reply, read the rest of the posts on the page (or even the next page), and then edit your previous post. "Personally", I think you should hold off on replying instead of replying to a certain post immediately and save yourself from comments that make it seem like you're not reading the replies.
Example....
Clix Pix said:
I'm glad SOMEBODY knows what that thing is. Ewwwww!
ETA: OK, so it's not a Tarantula.... well, it's still a pretty ugly little critter!
Clix Pix said:
IMHO this is most definitely NOT a "macro."
I don't think 2/3rds of the photos posted so far are macros.
Your photos certainly are, but many of the other photos here.......no way. However, I think that because we're a computer board and not a dedicated photography board, most of us won't have a "macro" lens that's capable of taking something that's 1:2 or better, so anything that's "close up" will be good enough. You're just said it's "not a macro" because you don't like the subject matter.
And I knew nothing about photography until January (just search to see what types of threads I started here in January
), so you can imagine how many types of lenses I own as a student that can take a macro shot. I'll have to get one as my next purchase.
pdpfilms said:
Wow, that's a fracking creepy macro all right.
I'm very protective of my eyes, and really can't imagine opening them up so wide while looking at the camera, even if there's no reason to fear (ie: no crazy lights behind the camera, or flash).