The Eye Of The Tuko: really quite amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tronhard

OK... Really I think you need to change your avatar name to Macro Man, and wear some Speedos over a pair of leotards, with a Cape emblazoned with a double M.:D

---

Without detracting in any way from Brian's image, be aware that the image you are eulogizing is a less than 10% crop of the original. Hardly macro. http://emoticons4u.com/sad/1361.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken MT

Took the liberty of reducing the window reflection while waiting for a long document to print. Trust that it is OK with you.

http://i64.tinypic.com/29ckjya.jpg

---

Perfectly ok. Obviously I need to work on my cloning:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cogito

Without detracting in any way from Brian's image, be aware that the image you are eulogizing is a less than 10% crop of the original. Hardly macro. http://emoticons4u.com/sad/1361.gif

---

Hi Tony, I'm just curious how you define macro. The original shot has about one inch of Tuko in it. The part I cropped to use is in real life about 1/4 of an inch long. I was very close to prime focus. And how did you decide the crop was less than 10%?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernFocus

That's awesome, Brian. Both the photography and the critter. Keep 'em coming.

---

I'll try

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donald

Wow .... as they say!

Nailed the focus perfectly and the DoF works beautifully.

---

I've been working on my focusing skills.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stagecoach

Good one Brian, he must have been sleeping:)

---

He wasn't this morning when I measured him and got hissed at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBW

Hi Tony, I'm just curious how you define macro. The original shot has about one inch of Tuko in it. The part I cropped to use is in real life about 1/4 of an inch long. I was very close to prime focus. And how did you decide the crop was less than 10%?

---

Brian, I'll accept anything where the image vs reality is > 1:2. Maybe pedantic but to me, as acceptable as 1:1 or greater. However, I don't include crops enlarged to the extent that you use. Sorry!
As to the size of the crop, well, you kindly showed us the original.... Easy maths.
And by the way, from my ignorance and curiosity, what is this "prime focus"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cogito

Brian, I'll accept anything where the image vs reality is > 1:2. Maybe pedantic but to me, as acceptable as 1:1 or greater. However, I don't include crops enlarged to the extent that you use. Sorry!
As to the size of the crop, well, you kindly showed us the original.... Easy maths.
And by the way, from my ignorance and curiosity, what is this "prime focus"?

---

Fair enough. Prime focus is primarily an astronomical term. But is used by some macroists to indicate the closest you can get to the subject and still be focused.

This must be the best among your bests...really stunning; kudos :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wavelength

This must be the best among your bests...really stunning; kudos :)

---

It is quite possibly my best yet. But after seeing Mike's 'Blood Orange' I know How much better I can do.

Brian, quite possible one of your best alright. Is that going to stop you? Just a thought.
Cheers Ole

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mugge

Brian, quite possible one of your best alright. Is that going to stop you? Just a thought.
Cheers Ole

---

Absolutely not. With all of the world class photographers in this group I am reminded daily That my best is nowhere near what my gear is capable of. Mike's Blood Orange being a case in point.

From Wikipedia
"By some definitions, a macro photograph is one in which the size of the subject on the negative or image sensor is life size or greater.[5] However, in other uses it refers to a finished photograph of a subject at greater than life size.[6]
"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken MT

From Wikipedia
"By some definitions, a macro photograph is one in which the size of the subject on the negative or image sensor is life size or greater.[5] However, in other uses it refers to a finished photograph of a subject at greater than life size.[6]
"

---

That's an optical approach. On my screen I don't see any difference between a crop and a non crop.

George

Incredible! Amazing detail. I'm surprised you were able to get that close even allowing for the crop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AG64

Incredible! Amazing detail. I'm surprised you were able to get that close even allowing for the crop.

---

So was I:)

When I first saw the photo, I didn't comment because I wanted to think about what my comments might be. Now that the thread has progressed...

Ken's post-processing that eliminated the large reflection proves the potential for this photo. It also speaks volumes about the idea that we should capture an image even when it is not ideal, especially when we can't realistically be overly choosy when it comes to photographing wild animals; if Brian hadn't captured the photo in the first place, no amount of post-processing could have improved it.

The resulting photo would not have turned out so nicely at such an extreme crop if the image had not been properly exposed and especially properly focused. It never matters to me how extreme the crop is so long as the resulting file size is a good fit with how it is to be displayed. As an example, though such an extreme crop definitely limits print size, it clearly doesn't limit the display on the Internet. Similarly, it would not limit the display on a large television.

I also notice, Brian, your comparisons with my image of the blood oranges and I think your thoughts are a definite disservice to both your image and your capabilities. My image was made with a static scene that would remain static no matter how long I would spend photographing it, no matter how close I or my equipment would get to it, no matter how much noise I would make, and no matter how much and how abruptly the light would change while making all of that happen. All of that is exactly the opposite in every circumstance of the challenges you faced. Considering that your image was far more difficult to make in those regards, my hat is off to you...and I don't even wear a hat! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

When I first saw the photo, I didn't comment because I wanted to think about what my comments might be. Now that the thread has progressed...

Ken's post-processing that eliminated the large reflection proves the potential for this photo.

and he inspired me to improve

The resulting photo would not have turned out so nicely at such an extreme crop if the image had not been properly exposed and especially properly focused. It never matters to me how extreme the crop is so long as the resulting file size is a good fit with how it is to be displayed. As an example, though such an extreme crop definitely limits print size, it clearly doesn't limit the display on the Internet. Similarly, it would not limit the display on a large television.

and I don't print

I also notice, Brian, your comparisons with my image of the blood oranges and I think your thoughts are a definite disservice to both your image and your capabilities. My image was made with a static scene that would remain static no matter how long I would spend photographing it, no matter how close I or my equipment would get to it, no matter how much noise I would make, and no matter how much and how abruptly the light would change while making all of that happen. All of that is exactly the opposite in every circumstance of the challenges you faced. Considering that your image was far more difficult to make in those regards, my hat is off to you...and I don't even wear a hat! :D

---

Thank you:)