I saw the original post.

I do think that given the apparent plea for help that a justification as to exactly what was inappropriate to this forum, which yes is viewed as a supporting community by some, is in order.

There could be a number of perfectly valid reasons why the thread was deleted, so I reserve judgement until that is explained. But an explanation is surely due.

These are just the sort of shots that made me entirely rethink how I approach my macro photography. Pioneered by CharlotteF of course. I got rather frustrated that I simply couldn't approach the likes of 14 with my macro lens and any combination of teleconverter and tubes. So with my macro lens I retreated and went for more 'environmental' shots. For this kind of shot I think that the butchered zoom and reversed enlarging lens is pretty much unbeatable. Spurred on by the posting recently of excellent macros and my impending departure from bug heaven I am now on a crash course. I have had the enlarging lens as soon as I saw Charlotte's first results. The sharpness and earthy colours were fantastic. But I just couldn't make it work reversed onto the DFA100 macro or tubes. I am now ebaying a 35-80- and will call on you guys for help. In the meantime I have had some reasonable success reversing the Nikkor onto 77MM and the 100MM macro. Finding the right permutation is remarkably complex. I have finally conceded that flash, at which I am cllueless, is a necessity - so far that is just the onboard with pringles tube. I will share some of my more successful images from a weekend of experimentation and very many deletd shots in a separate thread but I need to reach higher standards. So I have some questions though regarding a comparison of the butchered zoom versus reversing on the DFA100. I presume Charlotte has tried this but has sold the lens but that Starless still has the setup to compare:

Does the 35-80 give a higher magnification than reversed on to the 100?

How does depth of field compare? - it seems to me that the empty tube gives quite a bit more.

How does the vignetting compare at f32 - could either of you post an uncropped image?

Ta.

Everything about this image is wonderful and perfect except for the out of focus foreground blade of grass which cuts through the subject and is simply bad luck. I imagine that the lens is not at all easy to use and this augers very well indeed. Good image, nearly much better than that.

I would like to get this printed and framed for a birthday present. It is the road outside my brother-in-law's house:






Any advice on where to get this done and what type of medium would be suitable for it would be appreciated. I haven't had anything printed yet so I am clueless.

The image is 4688 pixels wide.

A K55/1.8 is an excellent flower lens and will cost you £30 or so. Using the same glass on a K3 would be fairly pointless.

That's a load of rubbish, nowhere near as good as a Nikon. I'd get rid of that glassless zoom if I were you. In fact post it to me and I'll dispose of it for you.

I have looked through them. I agree that it is an excellent use of a compact camera. The choice of subject and the compositions are excellent. The depth of field of the small sensor works in favour of the subject. However I find it works against the overall scene with many of the backgrounds too detailed and distracting. Strong contrast, often overly so, is also a feature of these shots to my eye. Many of the shots show some crude looking sharpening too with accompanying artifacts, although maybe this is due to resizing.

I don't want to take anything away from that set of images, but superb and a very high benchmark I really don't see. It is rather difficult to compare the output of the small sensor camera to that of the larger sensor, the resulting images being quite different. However I do think we should set our benchmark a lot higher than images such as those. Let us consider those the base level upon which to build.

Any square metre of anything outside my front door is chocafull of them, often ones that enjoy my blood.

We seem to have got some badgers in at the moment too, judging from the incredible destruction in the meadow.

For me it has nothing whatsoever to with equipment. It has everything to do with a natural instinct. I have a friend who only uses an iphone and prior to that used a cheapo compact for a while until it broke (Canon). He has never used a posh camera. He is though, imo, a natural photographer without realising it. He has an innate skill for composition and always seeks out an interesting way to capture a scene. He just has the eye.

Be careful with your accusations. I don't like Launch Pad.