# My First Sunset Macro!



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 28, 2011)

Your thoughts?








I used my 100mm 2.8 Macro lens, and an ND filter. I stopped down for maximum depth of field.


----------



## pgriz (Jun 28, 2011)

This is a trick question, right?  I see a rectangle of orange rimmed by a black frame.  So...  you can be a secret supporter of the Ukranian Orange revolution.  Or an undercover Orange Association sympathizer.  Or this is a special experiment in which if we stare at this for 60 seconds and then glance away, we'll see the complementary colors blinking at us.  So what is it?


----------



## camz (Jun 28, 2011)

Needs a watermark!


----------



## bogeyguy (Jun 28, 2011)

Your DOF sucks big time. LOL!


----------



## NateS (Jun 28, 2011)

camz said:


> Needs a watermark!



Too late...I already copied it and reposted it to my site with my watermark to claim it as mine.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 28, 2011)




----------



## Overread (Jun 28, 2011)

You need to focus stack it!


----------



## camz (Jun 28, 2011)

NateS said:


> camz said:
> 
> 
> > Needs a watermark!
> ...



Here come the big bucks!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 28, 2011)

pgriz, it is what the title says it is.

I thought the DoF was fine. Overread had told me when doing macro, especially with the 100mm, that if I stopped down too much I would get horrible diffraction, and chromatic abberation.

I never watermark my images.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 28, 2011)

I can take the same thing without a macro lens and without waiting until sunset.  Just remove my lens, and shoot a table lamp in manual.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 28, 2011)

480sparky said:


> I can take the same thing without a macro lens and without waiting until sunset. Just remove my lens, and shoot a table lamp in manual.



Yeah, that would be a macro shot of your table lamp though.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 28, 2011)

I swear I have seen this before!   That's right!   Home depot paint sample.


----------



## Overread (Jun 28, 2011)

chromatic aberration. --- actually -- I still need to bother to learn about that stuff


----------



## rmagers (Jun 28, 2011)

No watermark??? I think you are safe on this one.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 28, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Yeah, that would be a macro shot of your table lamp though.



My table lamp is nuclear powered, and is 93 million miles away.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jun 28, 2011)

Should have used a rail.


----------



## NateS (Jun 28, 2011)

I will say one thing....the bokeh is flippin' sweet.  You usually don't see bokeh this creamy with 100mm macro lenses...usually only the longer focal length ones get bokeh like this.


----------



## adversus (Jun 28, 2011)

Bitter is everything I aspire to be as a photographer.


----------



## chaosrealm93 (Jun 28, 2011)

wtf?


----------



## NateS (Jun 28, 2011)

chaosrealm93 said:


> wtf?



If you don't like it then you could at least offer some helpful c&c.


----------



## jake337 (Jun 28, 2011)

An instant classic!  Although there is some deed space on the right side that could be cropped.


----------



## Deo (Jun 28, 2011)

what is that?  you don't need a fancy lens to replicate that photo


----------



## TwoTwoLeft (Jun 29, 2011)

Sorry, don't like it. The subject is too centered IMO...


----------



## WesternGuy (Jun 29, 2011)

Let's be honest here...you just got a new set of Lee coloured filters and you wanted us to see the close-up effect for your new 81C, or is it the 85B?   :lmao:

Regardless, you got a lot more reaction than some do...why is that??

WesternGuy


----------



## Derrel (Jun 29, 2011)

Your utilization of the entire frame is impressive.


----------



## Jarrod268 (Jun 29, 2011)

You might try to find a flare or a sunspot next time to give it some depth. It looks a little soft to me - not much detail in it. Did you try sharpening? Also - using a tripod can help with camera shake and blurring.


----------



## Netskimmer (Jun 29, 2011)

I think the shot would look better at night.


----------



## pgriz (Jun 29, 2011)

eh, maybe a vertical orientation would make it look more "professional"?    Did you crop or can you reshoot?


----------



## Ron Evers (Jun 29, 2011)

Your white balance is off Bitter.  

I did not know what to expect from the title - what is he up to now macro /sunset, should be a good one.  Laf.


----------



## Compaq (Jun 29, 2011)

It's so sharp I cut myself. Did you use a tripod?


----------



## pgriz (Jun 29, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler - the *Rorschach test* creator on TPF...  wonder if that's covered under copyright laws?


----------



## Jarrod268 (Jun 29, 2011)

I think you might have a great future in chroma key backdrops

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


----------



## JWellman (Jun 29, 2011)

This is by far your best work yet. Keep up the good work Bitter... you should be proud of your progress.  (Teehee)


----------



## mishele (Jun 29, 2011)

I don't know, I just didn't agree w/ your composition!! I felt there was just too much empty space on the right side. Here see if you like my edit better.


----------



## AgentDrex (Jun 29, 2011)

Yeah, I see what you mean...Bitter take note for next time...remember composition is key...nice edit mishele!

Here's my edit...I went off a little bit...but this is what it is:


----------



## yoodontknomi (Jun 29, 2011)

Hahahahahaha

You guys are cracking me up over here!


----------



## mishele (Jun 29, 2011)

yoodontknomi said:


> Hahahahahaha
> 
> You guys are cracking me up over here!



Welcome to the party!!!


----------



## Compaq (Jun 29, 2011)

AgentDrex, not sure if your edit really improved the already brilliant contrast. Also, your tonal range just doesn't feel the same as the OP, or mishele's edit.


----------



## AgentDrex (Jun 29, 2011)

I know...I kinda go overboard in photoshop...photo editor is not in my career future apparently...


----------



## Ron Evers (Jun 29, 2011)

I like how AgentDrex coaxed the detail out of Bitters image.  Whoda thought.


----------



## Overread (Jun 29, 2011)

Ron Evers said:


> I like how AgentDrex coaxed the detail out of Bitters image.  Whoda thought.



Ahh that is the magic of a RAW photo you see there - even the JPEGs made from RAWs are vastly better than out of camera JPEGs


----------



## shortpants (Jun 29, 2011)

Perfect, I wouldn't change a thing.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 29, 2011)

When you say stopped down do you mean 1 stop underexposed , great shot


----------



## pgriz (Jun 29, 2011)

I'm waiting for someone to try a B&W version to bring out the surface tones...


----------



## camz (Jun 29, 2011)

I think the B&W wouldn't do it justice.  Selective colouring...now that's a plan!

I had to ask though...did you use a Mac or PC to edit this work?


----------



## Derrel (Jun 29, 2011)

pgriz said:


> I'm waiting for someone to try a B&W version to bring out the surface tones...



Ask and ye shall receive....here it is, a B&W version done using the Gradient Map option, and a slight curves adjustment in Photoshop.







I think it looks pretty awesome as a monochrome shot!


----------



## camz (Jun 29, 2011)




----------



## AgentDrex (Jun 29, 2011)

Wow Derrel...you could be a wedding photographer...this edit is really glamorous...nice job man!


----------



## Compaq (Jun 29, 2011)

I sit here awestruck at our nature.


----------



## pgriz (Jun 29, 2011)

Actually, I'm having a hard time sitting.  My sides are hurting too much...  Derrel, you're going to have to post the workflow - that version looks super smooth.  You sure you didn't use a plug-in?


----------



## christian.rudman (Jun 29, 2011)

i have been following this thread all day. this is just downright ridiculous. hahaha. im actually a fan of the color, while the monochromatic really brings out the composition of the image i think the color is where the punch is. see all the tonal range on the left and then the nice gradient into the left? thats what really makes this picture pop and it just doesnt happen that way with the monochromatic image. just my 2 cents.


----------



## jake337 (Jun 29, 2011)

Portraits of the sun, whether color or b&w, should be shot in portrait orientation.


----------



## jake337 (Jun 29, 2011)

camz said:


> I think the B&W wouldn't do it justice. Selective colouring...now that's a plan!
> 
> I had to ask though...did you use a Mac or PC to edit this work?



Ipad 2?


----------



## Compaq (Jun 29, 2011)

What's your ISO? I see no noise at all, even in B&W!


----------



## AgentDrex (Jun 30, 2011)

Actually...that's odd...I just looked at the exif...the white balance was off...he used the flash setting but didn't use a flash...I took the liberty of color correcting...the actual image should have looked like this:






You really need to pay attention to the settings.


----------



## pgriz (Jun 30, 2011)

So lets see

Weve touched upon:
1) Watermarks
2) DOF
3) Focus Stacking
4) Diffraction
5) Chromatic aberration
6) Macro rail
7) Bokeh
8) Photographic aspirations
9) Critical comment (wtf?)
10) Cropping and dead space
11) Centered composition
12) Filters
13) Framing
14) Sharpening
15) Tripod and camera shake
16) Time of day/night
17) Portrait vs. landscape orientation
18) White balance
19) Chroma keys
20) Progress as a photographer
21) Composition and dead space
22) Extraction of detail from RAW
23) Contrast and tonal range
24) Photoshop technique
25) B&W and tone conversion
26) Selective coloring
27) MAC vs. PC
28) Gradient map and curves adjustments
29) Wedding photography
30) Ipad 2 as an editing platform
31) ISO
32) Noise
33) Color corrections

Id say genius.


----------



## AgentDrex (Jun 30, 2011)

I think Bitter came up with the most helpful thread of all with just one color...brilliant...hip hip hooray for David...


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 30, 2011)

pgriz said:


> So lets see
> 
> Weve touched upon:
> 1) Watermarks
> ...



What about, "What camera is best to produce this type of image?"


----------



## sroc3 (Jun 30, 2011)

ITS MY GOLDFISH!!!!?!?!?!?!?....well, like one of his scales really up close


----------



## AgentDrex (Jun 30, 2011)

No, that photo is a macro of the sun as the thread title suggests.  THIS is a close-up photo of your goldfish's scales:


----------



## karissabphotography (Jul 6, 2011)

Uhm,
Sorry to say but incredibly boring photo...
You wanted this critiqued? LOL


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 6, 2011)

karissabphotography said:


> Uhm,
> Sorry to say but incredibly boring photo...
> *You wanted this critiqued?* LOL



Only by people of higher intelligence who understand the photo. So, move along.


----------



## karissabphotography (Jul 7, 2011)

Maybe you aren't the best person to judge my intelligence, especially with the photo you provided.
Please stop harrassing me and posting on my threads. Thankyou.


----------



## Netskimmer (Jul 7, 2011)

karissabphotography said:


> Maybe you aren't the best person to judge my intelligence, especially with the photo you provided.
> Please stop harrassing me and posting on my threads. Thankyou.



Not sure if you're joking or just...special. In any case this is actually HIS thread soooo...


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 7, 2011)

This thread is an intelligence test. It's pretty much pass or fail.


----------



## enzodm (Jul 7, 2011)

pgriz said:


> So lets see
> 
> Weve touched upon:
> 1) Watermarks
> ...



The picture is so sharp that I'm sure it has been made with a Canon. And no kit zoom, of course.

(something was missing from the list  )


----------



## subscuck (Jul 7, 2011)

Someone mentioned selective color, so I figured I'd show the noobs how it's done right.

The first rule of SC is to draw attention to your subject. What have I colored? That's right, the subject. See how your eye is immediately drawn to the subject? I haven't colored any of the other elements because I thought it would "look cool", or because I thought coloring them would lead the eye to the subject, or any of the other excuses you hear for poor choices in selective coloring.

BTW, Bitter, I cropped it a little as the softness at the edges was bothering me more than a little.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 7, 2011)

Excellent edit!


----------



## jmurphy (Jul 7, 2011)

I like the way you avoided a distracting background. Nice!


----------



## jaomul (Jul 7, 2011)

Looks like you need to invest in a new camera, without the built in orange filter


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 7, 2011)

jmurphy said:


> I like the way you avoided a distracting background. Nice!



Yeah, that's a good thing about Macro photography, the background tends to blur very nicely and not be too intrusive.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 7, 2011)

I know I harp on this a lot....but this would have made a really nice V E R T I C A L photograph!!! So, in keeping with that idea, I did a re-work of it, as a "tall". See the difference? Pretty remarkable,eh?







I was perusing the EXIF information for the photo, which revealed that it had been made with a Canon 5D Mark II, at ISO 100, at 1/60 second and f/16. I thought I saw the tell-tale effects of diffraction!!! Why did you stop the lens down so much? Wouldn't it have been a better use of the exposure triangle to get the shutter speed up a bit higher, like say, 1/250 second, by opening the lens up two stops, to f/8? Or maybe, just maybe, elevating the ISO from 100 to 200, and thus allowing you the option of shooting at say, 1/500 second at f/8? I mean, 1/60 is just such a slooooow shutter speed. Anyway, just kind of wondering out loud why you made the choices you made; now, if by chance this shot was taken with a flash, then I can understand the 1/60 shutter speed, and if that is the case, then, "Nevermind".


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 7, 2011)

Derrel said:


> I know I harp on this a lot....but this would have made a really nice V E R T I C A L photograph!!! So, in keeping with that idea, I did a re-work of it, as a "tall". See the difference? Pretty remarkable,eh?



You and your V E R T I C A L S! But you are right, again. I see the difference.






> I was perusing the EXIF information for the photo, which revealed that it had been made with a Canon 5D Mark II, at ISO 100, at 1/60 second and f/16. I thought I saw the tell-tale effects of diffraction!!! Why did you stop the lens down so much?


 I was trying to get as much DoF as possible. I supose I could have focus stacked this one. But sunsets actually move pretty quickly. I was on a tripod, so I didn't think f/60 was an issue.




> Wouldn't it have been a better use of the exposure triangle to get the shutter speed up a bit higher, like say, 1/250 second, by opening the lens up two stops, to f/8? Or maybe, just maybe, elevating the ISO from 100 to 200, and thus allowing you the option of shooting at say, 1/500 second at f/8? I mean, 1/60 is just such a slooooow shutter speed. Anyway, just kind of wondering out loud why you made the choices you made; now, if by chance this shot was taken with a flash, then I can understand the 1/60 shutter speed, and if that is the case, then, "Nevermind".


 I did use flash, off camera, from the side, hoping to bring out some of the suns texture.


----------



## marmots (Jul 7, 2011)

here's my edit
i tried to bring out the subject a little more






OH MY GOD!!!! IT IS!!!!


----------



## Overread (Jul 7, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> This thread is an intelligence test. It's pretty much pass or fail.



hmm when are the marks being posted? 
Also - is there any chance of a re-test?


----------



## Compaq (Jul 7, 2011)

After reading Bryan Peterson's "Learning to See Creatively", I really see how filling the frame with the subject really brings your eyes to it.


----------



## pgriz (Jul 7, 2011)

@ Overread - it's one of those self-marked tests... 

@ BJ:  post the name of the flash.  Also post picture of the battery pack you had to power the flash.

@ marmot:  The Holy See will like to discuss their perpetual copyright on this edit...  Unless, of course, you can convince them of its miraculous provenance...


----------



## AgentDrex (Jul 7, 2011)

Oh gosh...I hope I didn't fail...but I know one jeweler who seems to be a bit bitter...so yes...I guess I fail...


----------



## karissabphotography (Jul 7, 2011)

Like my edit? LMAO


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 7, 2011)

Not at all.  You over processed it and pushed the blacks so far you lost detail. But that's typical of Facebook photographers that charge $40 a session for a CD full of images that lack substance.


----------



## karissabphotography (Jul 7, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Not at all.  You over processed it and pushed the blacks so far you lost detail. But that's typical of Facebook photographers.


....


----------



## marmots (Jul 7, 2011)

karissabphotography said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all.  You over processed it and pushed the blacks so far you lost detail. But that's typical of Facebook photographers.
> ...



if he really is that do you honestly think that comment would affect him


----------



## karissabphotography (Jul 7, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Not at all.  You over processed it and pushed the blacks so far you lost detail. But that's typical of Facebook photographers that charge $40 a session for a CD full of images that lack substance.


Hmmmm i wonder why people pay for images that lack substance then....
Maybe because they LIKE THEM???
Have you read ONE SINGLE bad review on my Facebook page...
Wow stalker much?


----------



## karissabphotography (Jul 7, 2011)

at least i get paid for my photos, how much you get paid for orange paint photo?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 7, 2011)

Listen, Scarecrow...


----------



## marmots (Jul 7, 2011)

karissabphotography said:


> at least i get paid for my photos, how much you get paid for orange paint photo?



wow... this whole thread was a joke

don't take anything seriously from it


----------



## quiddity (Jul 7, 2011)

when is the sunrise macro coming?


----------



## karissabphotography (Jul 7, 2011)

Are you always this rude to people you don't know?
Why single me out?


----------



## vtf (Jul 7, 2011)

karissabphotography said:


> Like my edit? LMAO





Bitter Jeweler said:


> Not at all. You over processed it and pushed the blacks so far you lost detail. But that's typical of Facebook photographers that charge $40 a session for a CD full of images that lack substance.



:lmao: How'd I miss this....


----------



## karissabphotography (Jul 7, 2011)

btw bitter jeweller look up how much $40 NZD compares to USD. Rude Prick.


----------



## marmots (Jul 7, 2011)

karissabphotography said:


> btw bitter jeweller look up how much $40 NZD compares to USD. Rude Prick.



umm... that's less than $40 usd


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 7, 2011)

karissabphotography said:


> btw bitter jeweller look up how much $40 NZD compares to USD. Rude Prick.


QFT


----------



## karissabphotography (Jul 7, 2011)

Thats the point.


----------



## marmots (Jul 7, 2011)

ok... bitter didnt point out 40 dollars because it was too expensive


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 7, 2011)

Is it time to make your FOURTH account here yet, Sunshine?


----------



## karissabphotography (Jul 7, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Quoted For TrollingIs it time to make your FOURTH account here yet?


I NEVER ONCE trolled, YOU are the one that posts negative comments CONSTANTLY on my photos that I post (or have done in the past), YOU always treat me rude. Is it trolling to stick up for one self?
Please just leave me alone thats all I ever friggen asked!!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 7, 2011)

karissabphotography said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Quoted For TrollingIs it time to make your FOURTH account here yet?
> ...


Feel free to share the CONSTANT negative comments to your photos. I'll wait here.


----------



## vtf (Jul 7, 2011)

Wow, just when you thought it was safe to cross bridges again.


BTW Bitter, your image was ingenious! :thumbup:


----------



## karissabphotography (Jul 7, 2011)

Id have to log into EVERY SINGLE ACCOUNT I HAVE HAD TO MAKE DUE TO YOUR UNKINDNESS.
Can you just do what I asked please?


----------



## karissabphotography (Jul 7, 2011)

please?


----------



## Malone (Jul 7, 2011)

karissabphotography said:


> I NEVER ONCE trolled, YOU are the one that posts negative comments CONSTANTLY on my photos that I post (or have done in the past), YOU always treat me rude. Is it trolling to stick up for one self?
> Please just leave me alone thats all I ever friggen asked!!



Excuse me for butting in, but I believe YOU were the one who came to HIS thread to make nonsensical comments..

Please, return under the bridge from which you came.  :er:


----------



## vtf (Jul 7, 2011)

karissabphotography said:


> Id have to log into EVERY SINGLE ACCOUNT I HAVE HAD TO MAKE DUE TO YOUR UNKINDNESS.
> Can you just do what I asked please?



I must've missed something here, he posted a simple "like" on your thread to someone's comment. You are the one trolling his thread and if my memory serves me right once *you* have started you don't stop. This thread will lock.
Sorry Bitter but IBTL.


----------



## Olympus E300 (Jul 7, 2011)

I'd love to see this in high def! Project for the weekend Bitter?


----------



## Compaq (Jul 8, 2011)

I'm surprised that people realise who you are after four accounts.

Anyway, no one should be harassed. Constantly talking negative about someone can tangent harassment.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 9, 2011)

Olympus E300 said:


> I'd love to see this in high def! Project for the weekend Bitter?


If I have time!


----------



## mishele (Jul 10, 2011)

I go on vacation and you guys can't behave!!!! :lmao: I can't leave you guys alone for a minute!!!


----------



## Overread (Jul 10, 2011)

since when have you known us to behave whilst you're here  --- heck Mish with your flowerpowerpornarts you're one of the worst


----------



## pgriz (Jul 10, 2011)

Some of the best art is open-ended - you can read into it many different things.  When it is too clear, too polished, too complete, it tends to be cold, in my opinion, in that it says - job done, and you the viewer, have nothing to contribute here.  On the other hand, pictures that are both interesting and ambiguous, are much easier to emphatize with, as they invite you, the viewer, to add their viewpoints and interpretations.  I used to dislike abstract art, until my wife (who's a trained artist) gently reminded me that for art to be effective, it has to involve the viewer.  Do we want to have a story told to us, or do we want to participate in creating the story?  Of course, there is also the phenomenon of blathering on when there's really nothing there... (the allegory of the "emperor's clothes" comes to mind), but the razor there is emotion - if none is evoked, then the words ring hollow.  

@ mishele:  so how do flowers look under black light?  Hmmm...  might have to try this.


----------



## jake337 (Jul 10, 2011)

Overread said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is an intelligence test. It's pretty much pass or fail.
> ...


I'm not the teacher, only a student, but I only see 2 people on this thread failing so far....


----------



## mishele (Jul 10, 2011)

Overread said:


> since when have you known us to behave whilst you're here  --- heck Mish with your flowerpowerpornarts you're one of the worst



I need to get around to posting some more flowerporn!! I wonder if I could take a shot that looks like some titties?! Hmmmm....I'll be back later.


----------



## Scarlet Siren (Jul 10, 2011)

This moves me!   I aspire to become as good as this!


----------



## coldmm803 (Jul 10, 2011)

I think you should pay more attention to the histogram when editing. I like that you didn't add any vignetting, would have taken away from the subject.


----------



## mishele (Jul 10, 2011)

Scarlet Siren said:


> This moves me!   I aspire to become as good as this!



Give up now......you will never be this good!!!


----------

