If you look at the compression artifacts on the red pentax logo you have to ask yourselves if the guys resizing our cherished images know anything about image manipulation and web compression.

Believe me guys you really don't want to be leaving your image resizing to some serverside script designed by a geek.
550 pixels wide is ludicrously small- this is a photography forum!! what are you thinking?

The ads take up far too much space. Make the site wider - people with small monitors are used to scrolling and they probably haven't got enough money to spend on your precious ads.

I thought the competition was all about hidden beauty emotion etc in someting outwardly ugly. And as everyone who sees these images here on my monitor can't get past the 'orrible creepy crawly' thing, I thought it was a perfect candidate.
I also thought that those beautiful eyes are so small no one looking in real life realises what they are missing when they dismiss these ugly little bugs. So the photo can open our eyes and reveal stuff... which we all know here of course

Thanks guys. I had a look on flickr. wow! they're really into their bugs aren't they

I have a way to go to match some of those.

When I was trying to find his name I saw a shot of one jumping from one rock to another - beautiful capture! (lost the link).

BTW they seem to get tired after a while so if you chase them around they eventually stop and pose

When I took my first shot of a tiny jumping spider (just 4mm wide) I realised he had 8 beautiful black eyes, almost invisible to the naked eye.




so I got a little closer and used some photo paper for the floor, but the angle was a bit boring, I needed to do better with those eyes.




Time for some glamour. Out with the linen basket and milk bottle diffuser...

I lifted him up to eye level and spent the next half hour chasing him round the paper trying to make him look into the lens
My original objective was a high-key approach but I think this is a few levels too far, slightly posterised, but very spooky.




So I turned it down a notch and processed it from the raw file.




Could be a bit sharper I think.

then a couple of weeks later his son came by ... just 2 millimeters wide
The notches are my Leatherman ruler taken at the same time, same focal length and superimposed.




Everyone who sees these images recoils in horror thinking they're horrible tarantulas but I think they're incredibly cute and I want to get closer. I want to see my face reflected in his gorgeous little eyes!

BTW I think it's a 'he' and I don't know what make he is. He's not a common 'zebra'.

99p Soligor A 28mm, reversed onto extention tubes. flash fired remotely up into milk bottle next to white linen basket on its side and filled with spider.

Ahh...you've been busy while I was away.
Lots of images have played a part in my question, not least in a photo book I had to print for someone. But I guess one or two images in the competition galvanised me into writing a question here because I seemed to be alone in my view.

Epithet Man, your scare crow was definitely well received and was definitely on the brief in being humorous/ugly so I have no problem with it being there.
If you want an opinion on the comp, then I feel that unlocker's dramatic architecture photo adds more - creatively and technically, to the original creation.

BTW, Thanks for the link Gartmore - astonishing images.
Cultural desert me.
When I see these images I realise that trying to reinvent the wheel without any frame of reference, although fun and refreshing is not really working!

I'm a bit weird, something in me says that (consciously) getting inspiration from other work belittles my results. which is just wrong wrong wrong...

I'm getting over it.

I can think of quite a few but I don't really want to get involved in naming and ...well, whatever.

You're right tho John, at some point, really quite close to 'a snap' or straight technical record, the photographer can begin to take creative ownership of the image, but stood next to a completely original photo of otherwise equal merit the second photo should be seen as better by any standard I can think of.

I think I need to stop here and just let peole have a say.
I was just thinking out loud really. Dangerous that!

IMO any photo of an art piece (any art) where the photo itself has no more merit than being sharp etc. is to me essentially the creative property of the original artist and the photo is nothing more than a technical record for which the photographer could be paid for his time. The photo shouldn't be reproduced or shown publicly without the permission of the artist and no accolade other than technical can be awarded for it.

This is just my view, I have always held this opinion, I'm just wondering if I am alone

The grey area is at which point the photo stands out on its own merits as a creative piece. But in any case at no point should the original art be dismissed or not given due recognition.
If it is a public statue (for instance), the recognition is implicit, as the piece is widely recognised, but the photo has to stand alone even if the statue is really great and automatically makes a great photo!

I agree, but really, I'm on on a - 'can a straight photo of someone else's work ever be a good photo?' vibe.

Personally, I think not, and even an exquisite composition would have to give due reference to the original inspiration - the art piece.

I'm trying to be a little cryptic and purely philosophical here, so as not to offend anyone. Which I have been known to do

Does taking a straight, documentary picture of somebody else's artwork constitute good photography?

If I had gone to great lengths to create a great composition which included or focussed on some public art piece or was an exquisite photo of maybe a portion of an object then that would be different.

What d you think?

(bit of a rushed question, I might have to explain myself later)