# Three Dandelion Macros.



## Trenton Romulox (May 16, 2008)

One:
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Two:
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Three:
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Comments, critique, and irrelevant (but still funny) jokes welcome. Thanks for looking.


----------



## kundalini (May 16, 2008)

Just as a starting point, what do you like about these and do you have any specific questions you'd like to be addressed?


----------



## Trenton Romulox (May 16, 2008)

I like their simplicity. 

Here's a typical question that people might have when posting photos on a forum...what do you think?


----------



## kundalini (May 16, 2008)

Well, I consider dandelions to be extremely complex.  Your first two shots are clearly out of focus (to me) and the third has two potential points of interest that are missed
.
I hope that is a typical answer to a typical question.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (May 17, 2008)

kundalini said:


> Well, I consider dandelions to be extremely complex.  Your first two shots are clearly out of focus (to me) and the third has two potential points of interest that are missed
> .
> I hope that is a typical answer to a typical question.



Yeah, except they're not. The first one is in focus, to me. And the second one has a focus on the inside of the dandelion, but apparently you didn't see that. 

I mean, it just seems like you wanted me to have the entire dandelion in focus? Which, you know, isn't really how it was supposed to work. I don't know if you shoot macro with a macro lens, but that whole entire dandelion being in focus thing, really not gonna work out too well, and if it did, it would have ruined the bokeh in the first shot. Destroyed the purpose of the second. And taken the pop out of the third.


----------



## Sidewinder (May 17, 2008)

Ok, after reading along that whole thread about how criticism is supposed to work (or not work), someone new to this forum (but not new to photography) almost doesn't dare to write anything anymore. Especially nothing in the lines of "I like that shot".
So being someone who is not doing photography for earning money, but rather as an ambitious amateur, as a recreation in my free-time and for fun, I have the following things to say (even though they might not be as valid as the comments from the pros):

1. I simply like those shots. They are beautiful macros and being black & white makes them all the better.
2. The first shot seems a bit flat to me, I'd like to see it "pop" a bit more, maybe a little bit more contrast.  
3. Of all the three shots, I definitely prefer the second one, what I especially like about it is the focus being inside the dandelion and how those little hairs become clear again and focused towards the edges.
4. The third photograph is a good abstrahation of the dandelion. One of the pros about it is how it shows the complex structure of the plant around the central focused area. One of the cons is that there is a lot of distracting fuzz going on in the unfocused areas. I know about the rather small depth of field in macros, though, plus I think it's not such a big problem.

I hope this helped somewhat, keep up the good work! 

Sebastian


----------



## Parago (May 17, 2008)

I like the third one a lot. Did you take those outdoors? I guess not. How in the world did you get this fragile little thing inside and positioned without destroying it? 

Oh yea.. and what's with the attitude, kundalini?


----------



## kundalini (May 17, 2008)

Parago said:


> Oh yea.. and what's with the attitude, kundalini?


The initial question was put forth with an earnest interest for an understanding of the photos and TR's use of macro as I am considering one for myself.

The followup is an example of smartass begets smartass.


----------



## Ajay (May 17, 2008)

I like all of these, Trenton!  I do agree that the first one could use a bit more contrast - it does look kind of flat compared to the others.  These are a creative take on a macro dandelion and definitely a view I haven't seen before.  Nice job.


----------



## Parago (May 18, 2008)

kundalini said:


> The initial question was put forth with an earnest interest for an understanding of the photos and TR's use of macro as I am considering one for myself.
> 
> The followup is an example of smartass begets smartass.



Ah well.. thanks for clarifying. :er:


----------



## LaFoto (May 18, 2008)

C'mon sidewinder, no cause to be afraid of posting any _positive_ comments on here ever! Members like kundalini have much more reason to fear pushing the "submit" button after they have formulated their honest thoughts on someone's photos on display who apparently only wanted to hear you folks say that they are "good macros" with "pop", since that is what they feel about their own photos, anyway.

But if speaking one's mind (unless it meets the OP's own thoughts on their photography) is being trampled down upon by all others and being called "attitude", then why comment at all (and if the OP is so happy with his macro photography that he thinks each and every photo is perfect the way it is, anyway, then why post it, why not offer them up for sale right away?). I would stop commenting, if I were kundalini... why bother?


----------



## Parago (May 18, 2008)

LaFoto said:


> C'mon sidewinder, no cause to be afraid of posting any _positive_ comments on here ever! Members like kundalini have much more reason to fear pushing the "submit" button after they have formulated their honest thoughts on someone's photos on display who apparently only wanted to hear you folks say that they are "good macros" with "pop", since that is what they feel about their own photos, anyway.
> 
> But if speaking one's mind (unless it meets the OP's own thoughts on their photography) is being trampled down upon by all others and being called "attitude", then why comment at all (and if the OP is so happy with his macro photography that he thinks each and every photo is perfect the way it is, anyway, then why post it, why not offer them up for sale right away?). I would stop commenting, if I were kundalini... why bother?



Things have gotten quite funny on here lately. Certain members can post whatever the heck they want and it's called 'constructive criticism', other speak their mind and are being banned.. I don't quite get the concept here but maybe it's just time for another time-out for me.

Consistency is a virtue when it comes to running a board, IMHO - and this one sure lacks it big time.


----------



## LaFoto (May 18, 2008)

Some members have been consistent trouble...
But whoever feels this board lacks is certainly welcome to search the vast www for newer fields...


----------



## Parago (May 18, 2008)

LaFoto said:


> Some members have been consistent trouble...
> But whoever feels this board lacks is certainly welcome to search the vast www for newer fields...




No need to point that out, unless you're actually encouraging me. 

What in the world is wrong lately?? Everyone's so on the edge and ready to verbally smack each other in the face like we're getting paid for it.


----------



## Alex_B (May 18, 2008)

I think you are all grown up enough to accept honest opinions and comments.

I think kundalini's comment was 
 valid and without bitterness.  Come on people, if we want reflection, if we want to see how our images work with other people than those who took the photo, then we should be thankful for such comments.

To me they are all a tad underexposed, #1 and #2 have a somewhat random focus plane, are are not the sharpest even where they are in focus.
 The latter of course is purely technical and would not matter much if those two did evoke anything inside me, but they just don't. Of course this is just a personal opinion here.

The third one has much more potential, it is way more interesting in terms of the structures shown, but it is technically not right there yet for me (exposure, sharpness/contrast, ...), and there might be better compositions for it.

I am not saying this to offend anyone, but because this is what I feel / think when I look at the images.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying all my images are better.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (May 18, 2008)

All right, first of all, Kundalini shouldn't have posted his first response if that's all he felt like saying, it was a waste of my time, and his. 

And there's nothing wrong with posting positive comments, but there is a vast difference in the reception of negative comments made by certain members compared to others. Some people get to say pretty much whatever they want and it's never an issue. And others crack a few wise-ass comments and they get hounded. Apparently the longer you've been here and the more the moderators like you, the more you get away with. Which, in some ways makes sense, and in other ways is a joke. 

And in a response to Alex B, of course you're going to think Kundalini's response was valid, because it wouldn't be terribly unlike you to say the same thing. And about them being underexposed, that's a fair critique and I will look into that. Perhaps we are working on vastly different monitor brightnesses, perhaps the shots are underexposed, I will investigate further. The focus planes weren't random, but I'm not going to sit here and explain why I did something, because if I have to explain, then the shot has failed with you. And I have nothing wrong with the critique you just posted Alex B, it was perfectly valid, fair, and presented in a way that didn't piss me off. 

Oh, and one more thing, in response to Alex B saying, 'I think you are all grown up enough to accept honest opinions and comments,' we are all grown up enough to accept honest opinions and comments unless they are posted in a way that semblances that of an asshole. There's a difference between honestly critical, and honestly rude. And there's a difference between honest contributing to a thread, and honestly just typing the first quip that makes your drunk self chuckle and knowing it's okay because nobody is gonna stop you.


----------



## Alex_B (May 18, 2008)

I still think K's comment was acceptable ... OK, it was brief and not wrapped up in candy floss, but he also included the statement that it was just his opinion, and not universal truth which has to be valid for anyone (to cite: "out of focus (*to me*) ").


And it is pretty normal that people disagree on certain aspects, after all many things are a question of taste, and one cannot please everyone with one single image.

And I do not have the feeling that he is under special protection by the mods. Some people give negative comments in a nicer way, others in a less nice way, which to some might appear rude. But rudeness is relative and what is rude for one, might only be direct and honest for the other individual.

As long as it all stays within certain limits, no mod would intervene. 
Only if trouble gets out of control or someone again and again gets extremely rude and causes major uproar, then things might happen. But never without a warning.


----------



## Arch (May 18, 2008)

I have to say i am baffled by some of the comments made in this thread.

For all of those questioning Mod decisions you are all way off base... we ban people for publically attacking other members, just this week one of our longest members was banned partly for doing this... we have NO biases with anyone, you step out of line you get warned, keep doing it you get banned, its really that simple. This goes for people that have been here for years OR only a matter of days/weeks and everytime we do it, we do it to keep the overall great friendly atmosphere we have here at TPF alive.

Now, what kundalini initially said is not overly aggressive and he certianly does not need banning for it, nor any other kind of disciplinary action... it's to the point yes, but not abusive.
I realise Trenton that this is maybe not the type of response you want in your threads, if this is the case please try and ignore the comment or at least maybe a 'whatever thats your opinion'.... i really dont think he was trying to attack you in any way tho.

ok as you were.


----------



## abraxas (May 18, 2008)

I like the third one, it has some attributes.


----------



## Parago (May 18, 2008)

Arch said:


> Now, what kundalini initially said is not overly aggressive and he certianly does not need banning for it, nor any other kind of disciplinary action... it's to the point yes, but not abusive.



I never even remotely suggested anything like that. I merely asked 'what's with the attitude?', that's all. Might wanna go over my initial response again.


----------



## Arch (May 18, 2008)

Parago said:


> I never even remotely suggested anything like that. I merely asked 'what's with the attitude?', that's all. Might wanna go over my initial response again.



i didn't suggest it was you who said that 

I am mearly stating here what we pull people aside for in terms of behaviour, it wasn't a direct answer made to a comment anyone made.
However you did say that you didn't understand the concept here in terms of people getting banned, so i thought it may clear things up.

Anyways, back to the pics, any of you can PM me if you have any further questions.


----------



## milavidal (May 18, 2008)

Trenton Romulox said:


> And there's nothing wrong with posting positive comments, but there is a vast difference in the reception of negative comments made by certain members compared to others. Some people get to say pretty much whatever they want and it's never an issue. And others crack a few wise-ass comments and they get hounded. Apparently the longer you've been here and the more the moderators like you, the more you get away with. Which, in some ways makes sense, and in other ways is a joke.



Makes sense to me! Catch you guys later!


----------



## Wyjid (May 19, 2008)

i like Number one. i took it and tried the contrast thing but it's a no go. all of your other flower pics really pop. this is a nice contrast to your other work. dandelions are soft, especially when they are dead. secondly, when you try to bump up the contrast even a little, the detail on top and back of the flower blows out. when you darken the image to compensate you lose the comp aspect of the stem the flower in rear and the lovely glow around the center on the shot. 

as far as politics, i think i'm going to become a mime. then regardless of what you say or don't at least you know EVERYONE hates you. none of this shades of grey stuff.


----------



## Samriel (May 19, 2008)

Oh my, don't shoot the noob. :hail:

* Number 1*: There are two things that I dislike about this photo. First, I think the photo might be better of without the black part at the bottom, or it should be at least a bit shorter. Second, you have two elements: the in-focus dandelion in the front and the out-of-focus one in the back. The former stands out with it's detail, the latter with the contrast against the black background - both of them draw my eye equally, and it feels somewhat unpleasant to me.
* Number 2*: My favorite. Really like the focus being inside. If there was a bit more black around it, it would be even better I think. You have a clear 2D outside-borderline-inside pattern, and the inside part of it has a third dimension which you have created with the deeper focus. Really good.
* Number 3:* My least favorite. The eye wanders all around, not sure on what to focus. DOF might be a problem, but also the shape of the dandelion, with so many lines leading in so many directions. A square frame around the whole dandelion might have helped focus the attention to the midpoint, if that was what you wanted.


----------



## plentygood (May 19, 2008)

1) I wish it had more contrast to bring out some true whites. I also wish the details were sharper.

2) I know you were going for focus on the inner part, but my first impression was that you missed your focus. Good idea and I think if you keep experimenting you might find really good results.  Maybe you could try thinning out the front spores (carefully plucking, etc) before shooting to make the focus more clear.

3) I really like this one. I love the DOF. I love the detail. Most of all I love the contrast! This one is definately my favorite.


----------

