sunlight through spiders web

[IMG]http://i726.photobucket.com/albums/ww268/rhayles/Isunlightthroughspidersweb--resized.jpg[/IMG] Take a good long look JohnRiley..is that an outline of my greenhouse in the picture...This was obviosly cropped out of the pic I posted...SOME ABSTRACT..don't you think. I guess that I am beginning to realise that you are too quick with your opinions. Can't you just accept that those who place pics on here are honest and trustworthy, and when they state what the pic is, should be believed. Waiting for your apology.

If you check the other thread you will find John did not use the words you ascribe to him.

I think it is you that owe him an apology.

In my opinion a Pentax 100mm macro is 1:1, at least where I seek information. There is also a Pentax 100mm tele, which is not a macro lens.

From your statement in the other thread one would assume that you went from a true Pentax 100mm macro to a Tamron 90mm macro. This is by no means an upgrade.

There were two Pentax A macros. The f2.8 version was 1:1, and the f4 was in fact 1:2.

Nice lens, though. I had the M version, and sold it on to another forumite when I got the FA.

G

I have a couple of the 50mm f4 version .. I prefer it over my Sigma 50mm DG EX Macro lens.

Thank you for the info. In that case I suppose I owe rhayles an apology .

Terry, there is no need to apologise. We all get confused about the range of Pentax lens. The sin is to let our mistakes spoil our friendship.


Peter JohnRiley wrote
But it isnt obvios what it is..Pausing and wondering about it...and in the end settled upon an abstract pattern


In JohnRiley's position he should set an example and simply accept the explanation of the photographer. It maybe is.....not obvious...but why would he choose to decide that it was an abstract pattern when he had been expressly told what it is. If he felt I was trying to claim something that was not, then a simple question asking me for clarification would have caused me to upload the whole picture, which does make plain what it is. My good name has been questioned. It is only right that this should be addressed.

George. I agree that the Pentax A f4 (sorry, I should have made this clear) is a super lens but limiting if you go for nature shots where you can so easily spike your intended target. That is the only reason that I went for the Tamron, plus it was hardly used and at a super price. I still use the Pentax for my close up static shots. Would never get rid of it

Not knowin' what this is is what makes you wonder and marvel at this image. Any photograph that makes you stop for a few seconds to look and wonder is doin' its job, any image that makes you linger more has done its job!

I am a great lover of abstract photography, and I like the original image. The web has an analogy with the building behind, but I feel that the buildin' is comin' through too strongly in the image. Maybe it could be toned down with some 'PP'.

I don't think it'd make a bad toned B&W image either. But then i'm a sucker for B&W.

Sorry, I disagree. I believe in this instance John was simply stating that the image title did not match the image, he was not questioning the authenticity of it. I think your definately reading the wrong meaning in his replies.

PS: It was a very good image though.
PPS: Long Live the Tamron Macro

pleased you disagree. that's the great part of this Forum...but consider this. You state that you THINK I was reading the wrong meaning to his replies. but you only think..you are not sure. Perhaps I was not sure too, but I am sure that the image title DID match the image. My concern is that, even though John was not sure he should have accepted my integrity on the issue. I am simply defending my integrity.

Be assured you are reading totally the wrong meaning into what I wrote. I'm quite sure nobody was doubting your description.

enough said, John. Can we all leave this thread to fade away into experience land and be forgotton. Regards Ronald.