Weekly IL Macro Challenge ending 8pm Sun. 7th Feb. 2021 - Oil & water

One Googled definition of macro is that the size in the photo of the object is larger than the object itself.

One Googled definition of macro is that the size in the photo of the object is larger than the object itself.

Please note that I am only trying to pour oil on troubled waters😊

Please note that I am only trying to pour oil on troubled waters😊

I have to admit that to me 'macro' is anything that appears 1 to 1 (or greater) on the sensor, although I believe the definition is somewhat loose and getting looser all the time. For reference, [epzimg]184684_1612278672.jpg[/epzimg] Hmm, rather restricting? OK, maybe we could stretch a point, but within reason?. The logic of 'anything using macro equipment' escapes me because most macro lenses will focus to infinity, so the size ratio could be, well, rather different from 1:1. Close-up lenses and extension tubes restrict that ability, but still require the correct amount of magnification to get the desired result. So a clear idea of what is expected would be a good thing here - I have at times been somewhat frustrated by the fact that the winner is often the best picture regardless of 'how macro it is.' (oh dear, does that sound like jealousy, doesn't it?) Yes, the best picture is good - but are we all singing off the same hymn sheet? Is it a 'macro challenge' as it 'says on the tin' or something else? To set the record straight, btw, recently I haven't entered either competition becasue of an unreliable internet. And yes, I do think that it is quite possible that the nature of themes chosen may be guiding people more to close-ups than macros. However, it is up to the person judging to decide if the image meets the criterium of being 'macro' - whatever the subject. Tbh, I don't really mind which way things go, but it would be good to clarify things. There are certainly times when it would be nice to just go 'close-up' without bothering with my pesky extension tubes, but it would be nice to know and, because this is no longer a 'group' (a shame, I liked the group galleries) whatever decision is made is included in the speil at the beginning of the post announcing the new challenge. So, sorry folks, unlike Jack I'm not pouring oil on troubled waters but rather stirring up the mud at the bottom of the pond in a long-winded manner:$ Edited to add - it's long-winded, but the original was far worse:(

I have to admit that to me 'macro' is anything that appears 1 to 1 (or greater) on the sensor, although I believe the definition is somewhat loose and getting looser all the time. For reference,

EXIF

Hmm, rather restricting?
OK, maybe we could stretch a point, but within reason?.

The logic of 'anything using macro equipment' escapes me because most macro lenses will focus to infinity, so the size ratio could be, well, rather different from 1:1. Close-up lenses and extension tubes restrict that ability, but still require the correct amount of magnification to get the desired result.

So a clear idea of what is expected would be a good thing here - I have at times been somewhat frustrated by the fact that the winner is often the best picture regardless of 'how macro it is.' (oh dear, does that sound like jealousy, doesn't it?) Yes, the best picture is good - but are we all singing off the same hymn sheet? Is it a 'macro challenge' as it 'says on the tin' or something else?

To set the record straight, btw, recently I haven't entered either competition becasue of an unreliable internet.

And yes, I do think that it is quite possible that the nature of themes chosen may be guiding people more to close-ups than macros. However, it is up to the person judging to decide if the image meets the criterium of being 'macro' - whatever the subject.

Tbh, I don't really mind which way things go, but it would be good to clarify things. There are certainly times when it would be nice to just go 'close-up' without bothering with my pesky extension tubes, but it would be nice to know and, because this is no longer a 'group' (a shame, I liked the group galleries) whatever decision is made is included in the speil at the beginning of the post announcing the new challenge.

So, sorry folks, unlike Jack I'm not pouring oil on troubled waters but rather stirring up the mud at the bottom of the pond in a long-winded manner

Edited to add - it's long-winded, but the original was far worse

I think it would be good to keep to macro images but the definition of an image being 1:1 or greater on the sensor (or film) is difficult because of the different sensor sizes as illustrated above. Perhaps a definition of an image where the size of the subject in the photograph is greater than life size would suffice. But we would then need to agree how that image is viewed e.g. full size on a 1920 x 1200 monitor! Tricky isn't it?

I think it would be good to keep to macro images but the definition of an image being 1:1 or greater on the sensor (or film) is difficult because of the different sensor sizes as illustrated above. Perhaps a definition of an image where the size of the subject in the photograph is greater than life size would suffice. But we would then need to agree how that image is viewed e.g. full size on a 1920 x 1200 monitor! Tricky isn't it?

OK then...now that we have put the weekly b&w challenge to bed, you are now free to concentrate the rest of the week on getting oily and, well, eh, watery...

OK then...now that we have put the weekly b&w challenge to bed, you are now free to concentrate the rest of the week on getting oily and, well, eh, watery...

[quote]Tricky isn't it?[/quote] Yes, it is. I believe we should not overthink the problem, and I am totally against becoming a strict regime on this. We can use this discussion to have in the back of our minds that it is a macro challenge, and to adhere to that as far as is possible, the theme of the week taken into consideration. Nobody wants to start measuring and saying no to entrants. Let's not forget, this is just a bit of fun, even though we take it seriously.;)

Quote:Tricky isn't it?

Yes, it is.
I believe we should not overthink the problem, and I am totally against becoming a strict regime on this. We can use this discussion to have in the back of our minds that it is a macro challenge, and to adhere to that as far as is possible, the theme of the week taken into consideration.
Nobody wants to start measuring and saying no to entrants.
Let's not forget, this is just a bit of fun, even though we take it seriously.

We take it seriously???:D

We take it seriously???

[quote]We take it seriously???:D[/quote] Serious fun...

Quote:We take it seriously???

Serious fun...

Another wee bump, just to remind those who are forgetful as I am...

Another wee bump, just to remind those who are forgetful as I am...

[quote]Another wee bump, just to remind those who are forgetful as I am...[/quote] If it was a wee bump on the head then that may be the cause of memory loss. :)

Quote:Another wee bump, just to remind those who are forgetful as I am...


If it was a wee bump on the head then that may be the cause of memory loss.

[quote][quote]Another wee bump, just to remind those who are forgetful as I am...[/quote] If it was a wee bump on the head then that may be the cause of memory loss. :)[/quote] Who are you again?😕

Quote:
Quote:Another wee bump, just to remind those who are forgetful as I am...


If it was a wee bump on the head then that may be the cause of memory loss.

Who are you again?😕

I haven't tried this before so there was a bit of trial and error. Nice challenge which has got me to have a go at something new. On the macro front, the larger bubble or blob in this image is about 3mm across, so I think that makes the whole frame about 12mm. I've called it Eclipse. Lots of tubes and a flash from the side underneath the level of the water/oil. [epzimg]314095_1612558803.jpg[/epzimg]

I haven't tried this before so there was a bit of trial and error. Nice challenge which has got me to have a go at something new. On the macro front, the larger bubble or blob in this image is about 3mm across, so I think that makes the whole frame about 12mm.

I've called it Eclipse. Lots of tubes and a flash from the side underneath the level of the water/oil.


EXIF

Not tried this before, but I haven't forgotten! :) Maybe this afternoon, fingers crossed! Dave

Not tried this before, but I haven't forgotten!

Maybe this afternoon, fingers crossed!

Dave

Thought I would try a different approach and try to capture the diffraction patterns produced by a thin film of oil on water. [epzimg]299484_1612608914.jpg[/epzimg]

Thought I would try a different approach and try to capture the diffraction patterns produced by a thin film of oil on water.


EXIF

[epzimg]28689_1612696414.jpg[/epzimg] [b]Oil on Water[/b] I spent a while fiddling with the setup and then waited until the oil and water mixture stopped swirling in the dish. The problem was it never did. Under macro conditions the blobs of oil were always moving very slowly and my torch only gave a shutter speed of 1/50sec and a not totally sharp result. The solution was to employ the flashgun, turn out all the lights and fire the flash during an exposure of a couple of seconds. The background providing the colour was either an old birthday or Christmas card.

EXIF


Oil on Water

I spent a while fiddling with the setup and then waited until the oil and water mixture stopped swirling in the dish.

The problem was it never did. Under macro conditions the blobs of oil were always moving very slowly and my torch only gave a shutter speed of 1/50sec and a not totally sharp result.

The solution was to employ the flashgun, turn out all the lights and fire the flash during an exposure of a couple of seconds.

The background providing the colour was either an old birthday or Christmas card.