ADVERTISEMENT
Comments
Welcome back, it's over two years since you uploaded in the Critique Gallery.
This is technically advanced, well focused, sharp on detail. I wonder what effect you were seeking to create, what you were seeking to convey? For me an image needs to engage the viewer, draw him in. This isn't quite doing it, it doesn't take me into the bee's world...
My quibble is that the extremely shallow depth of field doesn't actually work for the subject. The bee seems to be disjointed, the sharp bits separate from each other. The two anthers are similarly hanging in space without a sense of structure.
Partly I think this is because of the angle of the flower. If more was in the same plane it would give that sense of structure.
This is purely a personal aesthetic comment, no reflection on the technical skill involved, and it may not be what you are looking for.
Moira
This is technically advanced, well focused, sharp on detail. I wonder what effect you were seeking to create, what you were seeking to convey? For me an image needs to engage the viewer, draw him in. This isn't quite doing it, it doesn't take me into the bee's world...
My quibble is that the extremely shallow depth of field doesn't actually work for the subject. The bee seems to be disjointed, the sharp bits separate from each other. The two anthers are similarly hanging in space without a sense of structure.
Partly I think this is because of the angle of the flower. If more was in the same plane it would give that sense of structure.
This is purely a personal aesthetic comment, no reflection on the technical skill involved, and it may not be what you are looking for.
Moira
I know very well how demanding this kind of close up work can be, and I applaud your technical skill.
However regarding the aesthetic aspect which, unless your intention was a 'record shot,' which it clearly wasn't, is really the whole point, I completely agree with Moira.
But aesthetic judgements can really only ever be subjective, so of course this is just my personal opinion, for what it's worth...
I don't like what you've done with the flower, especially the way you've got the anthers detached and floating in mid-air. It undermines the context, and makes it a technical exercise or exhibition piece rather than a picture. And the bee looks like it's in high Earth orbit.
In my view your picture simply isn't being true to the nature of the subject... that's "true." as opposed to "factual," and despite the obvious skill involved, I think you've made a poor creative decision.
However regarding the aesthetic aspect which, unless your intention was a 'record shot,' which it clearly wasn't, is really the whole point, I completely agree with Moira.
But aesthetic judgements can really only ever be subjective, so of course this is just my personal opinion, for what it's worth...
I don't like what you've done with the flower, especially the way you've got the anthers detached and floating in mid-air. It undermines the context, and makes it a technical exercise or exhibition piece rather than a picture. And the bee looks like it's in high Earth orbit.
In my view your picture simply isn't being true to the nature of the subject... that's "true." as opposed to "factual," and despite the obvious skill involved, I think you've made a poor creative decision.
]I am confused here and Moira is absolutely right. The image is extremely strong and has impact with superb sharpness in most places, but, why those settings? The problem is a slight lack of depth of field and f11 or 16 would have dealt with that. 1/5000 is totally un-necessary? The full frame handles the ISO800 OK as does the high spec camera but ideally macro should be at the lowest possible ISO for maximum quality.
Strange settings as you obviously know your stuff - so why?.
Paul
Strange settings as you obviously know your stuff - so why?.
Paul
Your write-up makes a point of NOT having done al lthe things that insect photographers usually do - and that would be fine if the result was spellbinding and very beautiful. However, it's more of a visual puzzle: instead of wondering at the detail, I'm asking myself how the bee is suspended there. More depth of field, and possibly a different angle to show more than the tip of what the poor creature's clinging to woudl give a context, and without that, the viewer is struggling to get hold of things.
It's good to give the viewer some work to do: it draws in, fascinates. But too much working out or imagination and most people just give up.
Sorry - it's not grabbing me, either. Was it simply a technical exercise to see if it could be done?
It's good to give the viewer some work to do: it draws in, fascinates. But too much working out or imagination and most people just give up.
Sorry - it's not grabbing me, either. Was it simply a technical exercise to see if it could be done?
Taken on the 2nd of January? A bee collecting pollen in January? ? ?
Sorry for coming back again 
but I"ve just noticed something else... you've tried to sharpen those anthers to make them stand out, but they aren't actually sharp at all, the one on the right appearing to be completely out of focus. You've just increased the acutance, to the extent that it's caused some haloing. Perhaps it would have been better to have left them soft.
but I"ve just noticed something else... you've tried to sharpen those anthers to make them stand out, but they aren't actually sharp at all, the one on the right appearing to be completely out of focus. You've just increased the acutance, to the extent that it's caused some haloing. Perhaps it would have been better to have left them soft.
Quote:Sorry for coming back again
but I"ve just noticed something else... you've tried to sharpen those anthers to make them stand out, but they aren't actually sharp at all, the one on the right appearing to be completely out of focus. You've just increased the acutance, to the extent that it's caused some haloing. Perhaps it would have been better to have left them soft.> Good point and apologies I failed to map the region, this was taken in South Africa January is very warm over there
Quote:
Quote:Sorry for coming back again
but I"ve just noticed something else... you've tried to sharpen those anthers to make them stand out, but they aren't actually sharp at all, the one on the right appearing to be completely out of focus. You've just increased the acutance, to the extent that it's caused some haloing. Perhaps it would have been better to have left them soft.> Good point and apologies I failed to map the region, this was taken in South Africa January is very warm over there
I see. Thanks. That explains the pollen collecting.
Thanks for clarifying the location! It explains a lot, in terms of light as well as date...
I'm still not clear as to what you actually want from critique. So can I ask some specific questions? Is this the effect that you sought to achieve - precise individual elements floating in space? If so how does it work for you? What does it say to you?
When we know what a photographer is trying to achieve, and when we get a dialogue going about the upload, it makes things easier!
Moira
I'm still not clear as to what you actually want from critique. So can I ask some specific questions? Is this the effect that you sought to achieve - precise individual elements floating in space? If so how does it work for you? What does it say to you?
When we know what a photographer is trying to achieve, and when we get a dialogue going about the upload, it makes things easier!
Moira
Quote:Thanks for clarifying the location! It explains a lot, in terms of light as well as date...
I'm still not clear as to what you actually want from critique. So can I ask some specific questions? Is this the effect that you sought to achieve - precise individual elements floating in space? If so how does it work for you? What does it say to you?
When we know what a photographer is trying to achieve, and when we get a dialogue going about the upload, it makes things easier!
Moira
Thanks Moira I was trying to capture a detailed bee and did not give much thought to the "hanging in space" but glad you have pointed this out and will give more thought to the next capture. Much appreciated for all the input.
Thanks for coming back. Essentially, the Critique Gallery is about seeing one's work through other people's eyes. If we help people to think about what they are doing that's mission (at least partly) accomplished!
I'm not sure about this floating in space thing. The be is clearly gripping a stamen on what looks like a Lilly type flower. The stamen is attached to the flower head - albeit with a vey blurred stem. The only fault for me is the lack of depth of field, which would make the attachment better seen, admittedly.
I still wonder why you chose these technical settings/
Paul
I still wonder why you chose these technical settings/
Paul
Using a shallow depth of field can work and is always worht trying.
However, I do see that the effect here where the insect is suspended in mid air is unsettling. If it were in flight I think that 'suspended' look would be more believable.
Shallow depth of field can simplify an image, whereas large depth of field can make backgrounds more intrusive. There needs to be a balance. While for example f/16 may be the classic choice here maybe f/8 could work nicely.
However, I do see that the effect here where the insect is suspended in mid air is unsettling. If it were in flight I think that 'suspended' look would be more believable.
Shallow depth of field can simplify an image, whereas large depth of field can make backgrounds more intrusive. There needs to be a balance. While for example f/16 may be the classic choice here maybe f/8 could work nicely.
