I started a thread(link) awhile back when I got my ZX-L. Other members said I should try and submit that image to the Pentax gallery, so I've decided to give it a shot. I've since got a new scanner and after scanning in the rest of the slides, I can't decide which one in this series of 4 has the best chance of being accepted. Which do you think has a chance? Don't be afraid to tell me If you think none of them have a chance. Why or why not?

...Please help me!

You can see bigger versions here(first 4 images): Zenfolio | Bryan Wolf | Macro - Fauna

Small versions:

1. I'm leaning towards this one.


2. I like his pose, but am not too thrilled that his eyes are a little blurry.


3. My second favorite, but there is some motion blur on his left wing.


4. Not particularly great, but hey... almost everything is in focus!


Thanks in advance!

Bryan

[Vertex Ninja]

Almost forgot... all were shot with a ZX-L, Vivitar S1 105 macro, Fuji Velvia 100F, and scanned with a Nikon Coolscan V ED @ 4000 DPI. Color corrected in Lightroom to match the slide(as close as I could get), then resized and sharpened in CS2.

[Vertex Ninja]

Nevermind, just read the rules. I didn't realize it had to be a Pentax lens.

[Christian]

how would they know?

anyway, fist one is best for me. You could even crop a little bit off the right hand side for my liking.

[Wethphotography]

Nevermind, just read the rules. I didn't realize it had to be a Pentax lens.

It doesn't. Many of us, including me, have had images accepted that were taken with non-pentax lenses. Just put in "unknown" when asked for lens info.
I think the first one is the one you should submit. Best wishes and let us know what happens.

[Donald]

none will be accepted, although it will be excellent if I am wrong.

1,2,3 are standard macro shots but there is no real subject, nothing is really sharp or composed to be central subject. 4 is slightly unique composition angle, but not sharp and non-complementary background. Also, it appears to be a common housefly: not too impressive for gallery submission at this magnification.

Photos like these, to be remarkable gallery submissions, should show either entire bloom and insect with everything sharp or just insect sharp and flower very blurred, or should be tightly cropped showing only flower closeup with no background at all: this is subject content focussing (not camera focus). There are of course myriad ways to compose macros, but I'm only referring to these style of shots shown.

[Vertex Ninja]

Thank you all for the comments. I had seen some images said "unknown" for the lens, but I had read there were recent changes to the gallery and figured that that was one of them. If I give it a try, it will be #1.

Donald:
Thank you for the critique and explanation. I am all amateur, for sure . These were actually my first 4 shots ever with a film SLR .

I have a few more questions, if you don't mind? If my intention was to make the fly the subject(in the picture below), but to compliment it with the colors of the flower, and knowing that this is 1:1(the lens's max magnification), how would you have composed this shot? Or cropped etc? You are right in that it is an ordinary house fly, but I think even ordinary things can look interesting at times. This picture may not be that time, but how would you have made this scene more interesting?

I really do appreciate the comments/critique and look forward to hearing more.

---

Last edited by Vertex Ninja; 07-19-2007 at 08:09 AM. Reason: Added image

[Donald]

there just happens to be sample on dpchallenge front page. Not my photo, no one I know.

Again, comments apply directly to your desire to enter in Pentax gallery. As general macro snapshots, learning, they're ok.

You see, the trouble with macros is they're a triumph of technique. Nothing else matters, just mastering difficult macro exposure capturing difficult subject matter. I think a huge majority of macros suffer for this: essentially boring photos. Seeing insects at slight magnification is no longer unique regardless the difficulty of photo capture. Occasionally of course the rare coincidence of colour and composition occurs, as in the linked example. Usually though it's another boring macro deemed exceptional via it's relative difficulty.

For exceptional macro photography look at Kenneth G. Libbrecht's snowflake's. Outstanding!

[Vertex Ninja]

...You see, the trouble with macros is they're a triumph of technique. ...

Thank You. Macro technique surely is difficult to master. So much so, that sometimes the technique wins out over artistic merit when looking through the veiwfinder. I guess the same could be said about art over technique. Both extremes can end up rendering a less than desirable image in the end. Finding that happy median is gonna take much experience, not to mention luck... at least it gives me an excuse to keep shooting stuff!

I appreciate the critique and examples. Those snowflakes are really beautiful.

[roentarre]

I like the first shot better

[Vertex Ninja]

Thank you James. Your galleries are very inspirational! Do you have any critiques/suggestions?

[Alvin]

I like the first photo. You got most of the bloom and the fly is focused well. The last photo would be my next pick because of the same reasons as mentioned by a previous poster.

[Vertex Ninja]

Thank you Alvin. It's almost unanimous!