leekphotographyclub.myfreeforum.org :: Close up (Macro) or Natural history

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:25 pm

has the close up competition been hijacked into a natural history comp

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:57 pm

I don't think so, at all.

Surely the first thing you associate with Macro photography would be insects and the like.

I think it would be a boring competition without Natural History subjects.

_________________
Mick..........

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:17 am

I tend to agree with Chris. The comp the other night was virtually a Natural History comp.

If you took out butterflies, moths, fungi and flowers then there would have been about 10 shots left.

I would prefer to challenge members photography and make the Close Up comp a "themed" competiton. Say "metal" or "in the kitchen"... etc.

The only problem is I'm not sure how many images we'd get if we did this.

Regards,

Rob.

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:42 pm

admin wrote:

I tend to agree with Chris. The comp the other night was virtually a Natural History comp.

If you took out butterflies, moths, fungi and flowers then there would have been about 10 shots left.

Would of been the same type of shots in any camera club.....anywhere.....maybe even more Natural History in other clubs.

admin wrote:

I would prefer to challenge members photography and make the Close Up comp a "themed" competiton. Say "metal" or "in the kitchen"... etc.

Should'nt you be challenging the other members photography. Is'nt that what competitions are about. Do you really think ''Metal'' would be more challenging than a Natural History close-up?

admin wrote:

The only problem is I'm not sure how many images we'd get if we did this.

About as many as we had without the Natural History subjects.... or less with a subject like ''In the Kitchen''

_________________
Mick..........

Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:06 am

Mick Johnson wrote:

admin wrote:

I would prefer to challenge members photography and make the Close Up comp a "themed" competiton. Say "metal" or "in the kitchen"... etc.

Should'nt you be challenging the other members photography. Is'nt that what competitions are about. Do you really think ''Metal'' would be more challenging than a Natural History close-up?

OOOOOhhhhhhh! Touched a nerve!!

My point is that the photography becomes stale, when we see the same old thing year in year out. Great - another bl**dy butterfly!!!!!!!!!

Personally I don't have the inclination, time or patience to take some of the shots we see in some of the competitions. Some of the shots are wonderful, but sometimes you feel as if you've seen one butterfly you've seen them all.

I do try to compete with other members photography within the rules of a competition. I doubt I could compete on some subjects (mainly Natural History), but I am not running scared by trying to get the rules changed.

What I am running scared from is boredom!!!! Natural History has it's place, and that is in a Natural History competition!

Regards,

Rob.

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:09 pm

admin wrote:

OOOOOhhhhhhh! Touched a nerve!!

Think you got me wrong somewhere Rob......

Anyway, you don't want Natural History in the Close-up comp so what about the opens????????

_________________
Mick..........

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:10 am

Mick,

Sorry if I got you wrong, it just seemed a very robust response!

If I stop being so provocative for a moment, I wouldn't mind Natural History being in the Close Up competition if there wasn't so much of it and it didn't dominate.

There was so much in the competition the other night it felt like a NH competition.

In the "open" competitions the NH is watered down significantly and so the content of the competition is still many and varied. It is variety I want to see (even if a NH shot ends up winning!!).

If I go back to being provocative, I do think that if a judge is faced with a NH, landscape, portrait and miscellaneous shot in an "open" competition, all of which are faultlessly executed and aesthetic - then the judge will 90% of the time go for the NH shot. I think the judge adds undue weight to the difficulty in taking the shot rather than the aesthetics of the image. That is not the members fault though.

I sort of understand why they do it, as I could never take most of the NH images we see at the club. I just wish they would resist the urge every now and then and place something higher than NH shots.

Regards,

Rob.

Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:27 pm

Ta for the response for me close up pics are perhaps a dragonflys eye not a dragon fly , a flys foot not a fly, a forgetmenots stamen not the whole flower just to differentiate from N.H. or relativly we could have a close up of a gate instead of the landscape or a close up of a fireman instead of the fire, do you get my gist

Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 7:33 pm

ChrisS wrote:

Ta for the response for me close up pics are perhaps a dragonflys eye not a dragon fly , a flys foot not a fly, a forgetmenots stamen not the whole flower just to differentiate from N.H. or relativly we could have a close up of a gate instead of the landscape or a close up of a fireman instead of the fire, do you get my gist

Well a Flies foot, a dragonfly's eye etc is really Macro.

The competition is Close-up and not Macro so anything that's taken close up qualifies.

_________________
Mick..........