Using flash is simply artificial. Any colors it might pull out are unnatural to the environment -- you didn't see those colors anyway. I want to capture the moment that was observed, not jimmy and jack around with it via camera tricks. I can think of far more interesting subject matter for playing with lighting and augmenting natural color.
Really? IMO, you simply delude yourself. The truth is you simply fail to acknowledge the fact that using a camera is itself
artificial. The whole concept of achieving a "bokeh" in your style of photography is itself artificial. That is not how one "naturally" sees an image. Therefore, you didn't capture anything "natural" at all either, you merely prefer your style of distortion of what was actually there
through your own style of modifying your own camera's adjustments. Your adjustments are no less artificial than mine.
The truth is, I didn't "jimmy and jack with camera tricks" (by turning on my flash) any more than you did setting your f/stop and ISO. I simply used another tool at my disposal to pull out the full potential of the available presentation.
If I wanted to get closer, I could always crop the image. But I don't want that. At full size, my image is quite sharp and detailed.
Cropping the image isn't "getting closer." Nor is it as effective as buying a better tool for the job. For your purposes, however, what you're using is just fine. For the best possible close-up macrophotography, a true macro lens is best.
You really come across as an ass, so I don't think I'm interested in any further conversation with you.
LOL, I don't remember calling you any names. Yet here you are calling me names and yet you say "I" am the ass.
The truth is, you're yet another weak person who can't take blunt criticism. You can offer criticism, but you can't take it.
The blunt truth of the matter is, if achieving "skill in angles" is the defining point of an artistic image, then you simply failed in precisely this skill set. Even by your own admission.
For me, this is all impromptu fun photography. It's a way for the camera to still be fun, instead of always being used solely for work.
Butterfly photography is fun for me too. So is debating the merits of image quality with overly-sensitive types who are easily butt-hurt.
So I don't need some wise acre telling me that my shots should be deleted.
I didn't say your shots "should" be deleted; I said *I* would have deleted that shot. There is a difference.
For that matter, I have deleted these last two shots of mine also, as they have served their purpose and I really have no long-term use for them.
I think your flash work is terrible, but I don't feel the need to give you a verbal raping over it.
LOL, true to hypocritical form, you just did give me a "verbal raping"
Unlike you, I my feelings are not hurt over your reactive opinion. BTW, what do you feel is terrible about my flashwork? I didn't struggle too hard in the post-processing, and I do think the saturation is a bit much, but other than that the colors came out wonderfully. Especially on the full-sized .tiff.
If I wanted harsh criticism, I could just ask my last editor for opinions -- he was needlessly rude, too. (And to make things worse, he couldn't shoot himself out of a paper bag.)
It seems your last editor didn't like your images either ... and it seems you feel the need to insult him too ... are we noticing a pattern here?
In my case, if you didn't want criticism, then you shouldn't have first given it.
Myself, I actually welcome criticism, the more open and honest the better, but I also want to see if the person who criticizes can first show he can "walk his talk." I think this is fair. In your case, you first spoke to me of "perfection," and when I asked for a sample of your own perfection, you presented to me a poorly-composed shot, taken from 3' away, as a model of macro-focus perfection. I think that the images I posted on the first page, and of the moth photos above your first post, are light years
better quality macro shots (compositionally, color-wise, and qualitatively) than your image. Now then, to show I am not just proud of my own images, I think SolarDarkroom truly does have many exceptional butterfly images too, many of which are better than my own, images which show true skill in macrophotography. I likewise appreciate Dwayne Oakes' "Tiger in the Sun" artistic butterfly portrayal. So I am not afraid to give compliments when they are due, nor am I afraid to admire another man's work (nor to learn from any man who knows more about a subject than I do).
In your case, however, the truth is your image is simply a discard-level image IMO and does nothing for me. That you achieved "sharp total focus" of the butterfly is only because it was a speck in your viewfinder and not a true macro shot. And that the bokeh was nice doesn't change the fact the shot was poorly-composed with a severely-flawed background. In my honest opinion, your image is neither suitable as "fine art" nor is it suitable as a model of species identification. Either of these could have been done much more effectively.
I am sorry if this offends you, but you put yourself in this position by speaking of "perfection" and then offering as an example a severely-flawed image. Still, I never called you any names, as you called me. I merely called your attention to the fact that your image failed in precisely the "skill in angles" requirement you yourself said was the defining line between a work of art and a snapshot.
Enjoy your butterfly shooting, all the same. Thanks.
I always do---and you do the same
Take care, and don't take the simple truth so hard, it is unbecoming.