Some Macros That Needs Critique

Please share your thoughts... Thanks in advance.

2631 x 3507

EMBED PREVENTED, IMAGE TOO LARGE: http://img404.imagesha​ck.us/img404/7810/img8​864x.jpg Click here to see our image rules.

3236 x 2384

EMBED PREVENTED, IMAGE TOO LARGE: http://img838.imagesha​ck.us/img838/1146/img8​907q.jpg Click here to see our image rules.

please number in the future

#1 over saturated
#2 nice
#3 bugs nice flower looks flat and cropped too tight
4# whites are blow loss of detail
5# cropped too tight need better angle on bee
6# focus
7# loose the bud lower part of the picture
8# right side pedal should come off and focus is soft

#1 looks fine but not an appealing subject
#2 my fav of the set. really nice
#3 dark foreground flower
#4 white behind bug is badly placed. red background to the right would have served better
#5 I like, minus the flower being cut off on left
#6 focus is off
#7 could have had a more flattering background, the lower bud as mentions above is wanting attention and takes away from flower
#8 focus to small, and could be a little brighter and saturated

these aren't bad at all, and good for the most part. I was just being critical and everything could easily be fixed for next time.

cheers

Justin #1 looks like cotton candy too bright...that's why I think its over saturated

#1 - I like it. It would also work cropped horizontal.
#2 - Also nice.
#3 - I'd crop in on the bugs.
#4 - Need to see the whole bee.
#5 - Need to see the bee's head.
#6 - Missed focus on the bee.
#7 - Nice.
#8 - A funny angle.

I look at these as close ups, not true macro.agree with stan on the C&C.

Thanks a lot for the feedback guys... Will try to do a better job next time.

@Flo, never thought about it, your comment surprised me. Will try to learn the differences as soon as possible.

Bogac Erkan wrote in post #14569995
Thanks a lot for the feedback guys... Will try to do a better job next time.

@Flo, never thought about it, your comment surprised me. Will try to learn the differences as soon as possible.

For me, macro is just that, something so close that it almost eliminates anything else that may be in the photo.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1195179


Check out Lord IV photos, stunning.

Well, surprised in a good way of course and I really appreciate your comment because I wasn't aware there's a difference.

I've browsed a little bit and what I read was that basicly, macro shots are mostly concentrated on the subject and taken with a real macro lens. When you use your lenses intended for other purposes but have macro capability, you shoot close-ups.

Valid or not, I have a better understanding now, thanks.

Bogac Erkan wrote in post #14571739
Well, surprised in a good way of course and I really appreciate your comment because I wasn't aware there's a difference.

I've browsed a little bit and what I read was that basicly, macro shots are mostly concentrated on the subject and taken with a real macro lens. When you use your lenses intended for other purposes but have macro capability, you shoot close-ups.

Valid or not, I have a better understanding now, thanks.

I think you can certainly get "macros" with any lens, just the capabilities are better with the dedicated lens meant for that purpose. Have you ever tried Reverse Lens! Lol.I attempt it every now and then. You can buy extenders for your lens.
http://www.dpchallenge​.com/tutorial.php?TUTO​RIAL_ID=40

I have been threatening to buy them.

Just bought a 70-300 lens, other stuff should wait some time. Reverse lens thing seems interesting, I plan to give it a try some time but at this moment I am anxious to get my new toy and play with it.

i like geometry of second one