Re: [SI] New Mandates.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by PeterN, May 19, 2012.

  1. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/13/2012 4:02 PM, Bowser wrote:

    <snip>

    > Some of us have jobs. And some of us have no macro gear, so I'll have
    > to improvise.

    Not sure what you sue, but some inexpensive suggestions.

    Extension tube;
    Optical close up lens
    enlarge a portion of your image.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, May 19, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. PeterN

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 18 May 2012 21:00:29 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 5/13/2012 4:02 PM, Bowser wrote:
    >
    ><snip>
    >
    >> Some of us have jobs. And some of us have no macro gear, so I'll have
    >> to improvise.

    >Not sure what you sue, but some inexpensive suggestions.
    >
    >Extension tube;
    >Optical close up lens
    >enlarge a portion of your image.


    The mandate is macro or close-up. I've been shooting close-ups for
    years - and will submit three to the current SI - and don't own any
    macro gear.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, May 19, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/18/2012 10:13 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 18 May 2012 21:00:29 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 5/13/2012 4:02 PM, Bowser wrote:
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>> Some of us have jobs. And some of us have no macro gear, so I'll have
    >>> to improvise.

    >> Not sure what you sue, but some inexpensive suggestions.
    >>
    >> Extension tube;
    >> Optical close up lens
    >> enlarge a portion of your image.

    >
    > The mandate is macro or close-up. I've been shooting close-ups for
    > years - and will submit three to the current SI - and don't own any
    > macro gear.
    >


    Yes I was simply offering inexpensive alternatives to Bowser, if he
    wanted to shoot macro.



    --
    Peter
    PeterN, May 19, 2012
    #3
  4. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/19/2012 1:44 PM, Frank S wrote:
    >
    > "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    > news:4fb7bb38$0$28413$-secrets.com...
    >> On 5/18/2012 10:13 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 18 May 2012 21:00:29 -0400, PeterN
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 5/13/2012 4:02 PM, Bowser wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> <snip>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Some of us have jobs. And some of us have no macro gear, so I'll have
    >>>>> to improvise.
    >>>> Not sure what you sue, but some inexpensive suggestions.
    >>>>
    >>>> Extension tube;
    >>>> Optical close up lens
    >>>> enlarge a portion of your image.
    >>>
    >>> The mandate is macro or close-up. I've been shooting close-ups for
    >>> years - and will submit three to the current SI - and don't own any
    >>> macro gear.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Yes I was simply offering inexpensive alternatives to Bowser, if he
    >> wanted to shoot macro.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > While we are picking nits: unless the original image is recorded by
    > macro or in closeup, enlarging a portion of an image is not within the
    > spirit of the mandate, my view.
    >

    It seems to me that the technique is immaterial. If one visualizes the
    image prior to capture, why should the lack of equipment matter.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, May 20, 2012
    #4
  5. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/20/2012 4:13 PM, Frank S wrote:
    >
    > "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    > news:4fb83b80$0$31394$-secrets.com...
    >> On 5/19/2012 1:44 PM, Frank S wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:4fb7bb38$0$28413$-secrets.com...
    >>>> On 5/18/2012 10:13 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>>>> On Fri, 18 May 2012 21:00:29 -0400, PeterN
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 5/13/2012 4:02 PM, Bowser wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> <snip>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Some of us have jobs. And some of us have no macro gear, so I'll
    >>>>>>> have
    >>>>>>> to improvise.
    >>>>>> Not sure what you sue, but some inexpensive suggestions.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Extension tube;
    >>>>>> Optical close up lens
    >>>>>> enlarge a portion of your image.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The mandate is macro or close-up. I've been shooting close-ups for
    >>>>> years - and will submit three to the current SI - and don't own any
    >>>>> macro gear.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes I was simply offering inexpensive alternatives to Bowser, if he
    >>>> wanted to shoot macro.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> While we are picking nits: unless the original image is recorded by
    >>> macro or in closeup, enlarging a portion of an image is not within the
    >>> spirit of the mandate, my view.
    >>>

    >> It seems to me that the technique is immaterial. If one visualizes the
    >> image prior to capture, why should the lack of equipment matter.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Well, sure. Why should there be mandates at all? My principal objection
    > to some past exhibitions has been that the author didn't seem to
    > acknowledge the mandate at all, just chose an image, barely identifiable
    > in some cases as a photograph, and set it before the assembly.


    Probably guilty, though I admit to stretching the subject. For me
    photography is a relaxing hobby. The mandate got me out shooting for
    about 15 minutes today.

    >
    > On another but related tack: I'd say that a frame-filling or larger
    > image of a jet plane in flight or a racing car at speed might well
    > qualify as "close up" to ordinary mortals with normal fear reflexes.


    Of course! "Close up" is an imprecise, relative term. What might be far
    away for your racing car, would be much too close for shooting an
    explosion. (depending of course on the size of the explosion.






    --
    Peter
    PeterN, May 20, 2012
    #5
  6. PeterN

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 20 May 2012 13:13:21 -0700, "Frank S" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"PeterN" <> wrote in message
    >news:4fb83b80$0$31394$-secrets.com...
    >> On 5/19/2012 1:44 PM, Frank S wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:4fb7bb38$0$28413$-secrets.com...
    >>>> On 5/18/2012 10:13 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>>>> On Fri, 18 May 2012 21:00:29 -0400, PeterN
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 5/13/2012 4:02 PM, Bowser wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> <snip>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Some of us have jobs. And some of us have no macro gear, so I'll have
    >>>>>>> to improvise.
    >>>>>> Not sure what you sue, but some inexpensive suggestions.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Extension tube;
    >>>>>> Optical close up lens
    >>>>>> enlarge a portion of your image.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The mandate is macro or close-up. I've been shooting close-ups for
    >>>>> years - and will submit three to the current SI - and don't own any
    >>>>> macro gear.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes I was simply offering inexpensive alternatives to Bowser, if he
    >>>> wanted to shoot macro.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> While we are picking nits: unless the original image is recorded by
    >>> macro or in closeup, enlarging a portion of an image is not within the
    >>> spirit of the mandate, my view.
    >>>

    >> It seems to me that the technique is immaterial. If one visualizes the
    >> image prior to capture, why should the lack of equipment matter.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >Well, sure. Why should there be mandates at all? My principal objection to
    >some past exhibitions has been that the author didn't seem to acknowledge
    >the mandate at all, just chose an image, barely identifiable in some cases
    >as a photograph, and set it before the assembly.
    >
    >On another but related tack: I'd say that a frame-filling or larger image of
    >a jet plane in flight or a racing car at speed might well qualify as "close
    >up" to ordinary mortals with normal fear reflexes.


    I wouldn't. The primary theme of the two photos you describe is the
    object: the jet plane and the racing car. The primary theme of a
    "close-up" is the closeness of the view.

    This is a photograph of a watch:
    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Table-Top-Photography/i-7GwDdX4/0/XL/2000-144a-XL.jpg

    This is a photograph of a close-up of watch parts:

    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Table-Top-Photography/i-QbvQgwb/0/XL/2010-03-17-34-XL.jpg



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, May 20, 2012
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bowser

    [SI] New mandates coming soon...

    Bowser, Feb 5, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    329
    Robert Coe
    Feb 10, 2010
  2. Bruce

    Re: [SI] New Mandates

    Bruce, Feb 6, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    804
    Peter
    Feb 11, 2010
  3. Robert Coe

    Re: [SI] New Mandates! Get 'em while they're hot!

    Robert Coe, Jul 5, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    55
    Views:
    1,035
  4. Bruce

    Re: [SI] New Mandates!

    Bruce, Sep 22, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    265
  5. Superzooms Still Win

    Re: [SI] New Mandates!

    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 23, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    280
    Superzooms Still Win
    Sep 24, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page