• 03-09-2004, 03:33 PM
    adina
    Does this qualify as macro?
    Trying something other than flowers or bugs...although we have a gazillion japanese ladybugs if I wanted one.


    adina
  • 03-09-2004, 03:41 PM
    Old Timer
    Oh Yeah!
    Not only does it qualify it is very good. I would have liked to see those ends a little sharper but over all the image is very nice. The use of b&w here was an excellent choice.
  • 03-10-2004, 10:34 AM
    adina
    Thank you!
    On the larger file, the crusty part looks sharper, more defined, or are you talking about the other end? :)

    Thank you!

    adina
  • 03-10-2004, 11:21 AM
    natatbeach
    definitely
    this is most definitely a good example...I like the blurred 'nana in the background...just enough...More please :)
  • 03-10-2004, 12:15 PM
    Old Timer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by adina
    On the larger file, the crusty part looks sharper, more defined, or are you talking about the other end? :)

    Thank you!

    adina

    My reference was to the crusty part. I just thought it looked a little soft. But I loved your subject and the composition.
  • 03-10-2004, 02:42 PM
    paulnj
    not macro... macro would be 1/15th of this image
  • 03-10-2004, 02:59 PM
    natatbeach
    adina read this---what do you think in this case?
    http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/c...mar/close.html

    they have a reasonable explanation
  • 03-10-2004, 05:27 PM
    adina
    thanks for the link
    I am going to try and get closer, next time we buy bananas.

    adina
  • 03-11-2004, 06:30 AM
    natatbeach
    Lol
    housewife photography is so unpredicatble...so often it depends on what's in the kitchen or on sale-he he.... Some day I want a coffee table book(really) with images taken by stay at home housewives and housedads of objects and images found while raising kids...

    unfortunately I priced what it would cost having no national recognition and each book would be about $30-40 to produce---oh well back to dreamworld