05-06-09 – In Close – Its not photography, its Farktography

This topic has 98 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 5 months ago by Elsinore.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 99 total)

1 2 3 … 5 6 7 →

Author

Posts
March 19, 2009 at 5:26 pm #1563

Elsinore
Keymaster

Macrophotography. Difficulty: nothing over 2″ in size can be the subject.

Kudos to soosh for the theme suggestion!

March 19, 2009 at 5:48 pm #21881

soosh
Participant

you know, maybe that difficulty needs to be cleaned up. taking a macro photo of a leaf that’s part of a plant that is larger than 2″ should be ok. somehow it needs to be worded that the frame can capture no more than 2″ of a subject.

March 19, 2009 at 7:08 pm #21882

pangolyn
Participant

I would still interpret it that the main subject of the image can’t be more than 2 inches in size, even if its the leaf of a tree, it needs to be a small leaf.

March 19, 2009 at 9:23 pm #21883

soosh
Participant

Not necessarily, I don’t think. If you want to take a 2 inch (or smaller) detail of the veins in a huge leaf. that would be fine.

March 19, 2009 at 10:05 pm #21884

millera9
Participant

How about saying the “focus” of the photo must be on something smaller than 2″? That makes it a bit more vague and open to interpretation.

March 20, 2009 at 2:38 am #21885

corsec67
Participant

How about the area captured by the camera should be less than 2″/5cm on a side?

March 21, 2009 at 1:08 am #21886

justkat
Participant

just came in here wondering about this myself. was considering taking a picture of my kitty’s nose. 🙂

March 26, 2009 at 11:46 pm #21887

corsec67
Participant

Wow, this will be the 100th contest I have entered in a row! (Assuming I don’t miss any of the ones between now and this one.)

March 27, 2009 at 12:16 am #21888

soosh
Participant

How about the area captured by the camera should be less than 2″/5cm on a side?

That is what I’m trying to get across.

March 28, 2009 at 5:08 pm #21889

stupido
Participant

Now that changes it significantly. Now I no longer have to look at only small things. Just small portions of them.

March 28, 2009 at 10:38 pm #21890

soosh
Participant

Yeah, my intent with the contest was a close look at whatever, not pictures of tiny things necessarily.

April 16, 2009 at 5:02 pm #21891

monsieurstabby
Participant

I foresee a lot of cropping in my future.

April 21, 2009 at 9:23 pm #21892

monsieurstabby
Participant

I’m still unsure if this is okay:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3521/3463120239_f65d687559.jpg?v=0

It’s the closest I can zoom in with my 28-90 plus I cropped it as much as I could. If the rule is strictly 2 inches covered in the photo rather than 2 inches in focus, I think I’ll have to sit this one out.

April 23, 2009 at 8:15 pm #21893

soosh
Participant

I think that’d qualify. What are the pixel dimensions of the original file and what does it look like uncropped?

April 24, 2009 at 1:41 pm #21894

monsieurstabby
Participant

I think that’d qualify. What are the pixel dimensions of the original file and what does it look like uncropped?

Original dimensions are 3504 ? 2336. Looking back, it did need some cropping anyway .

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3633/3470232137_cccb0fd542.jpg?v=0
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 99 total)

1 2 3 … 5 6 7 →

The topic ‘05-06-09 – In Close’ is closed to new replies.