Please continue Nigel, I value your contributions. Doesn't mean I understand them but I am trying. Whilst I might not think it an approach suitable to a scene with quickly changing light, such as these where the Sun was whizzing in and out of varying densities clouds there may be an approach to follow in a scene with more consistent light.

I'm supposed to be submitting my French tax return now but I got distracted. I haven't read through everyone's comments as I'm supposed to be working so apologies for any repetition of points already answered.

There is nothing whatsoever I can see wrong with these shots. The only question is how they can be improved.

The second looks like a cropped version of the first to me. I don't think foreground objects jutting out at the viewer is a device that works that well in insect macro and I find the grass too dominant. I think this kind of close up on the face shot works better closer as the area of interest otherwise covers such a small proportion of the frame - the realm of reversing and more tubes and all kind of difficult things. The beauty comes from the scientific detail rather than the rlationship of subject and background.

Early lunch, I think we need gory detail through greater depth of field. The fly is another oof but significant foreground object, so not dissimilar to one.

Eye. I have noticed on my damselfly shots that the eye of the damselfly, in common with certain other insects, can look soft when it is in sharp focus. Hence I think that illusion has to be controlled by either going in closer still and extracting more detail from the eye or by providing a greater depth of field so more of the insect is in focus and the viewer therefore knows the eye is focus.

Clinging on - this is the most successful shot for me. Looks a bit 'glowy' somehow. It would be nice to have a more homogenous backdrop, the lighter coloured leaves at the bottom take away rather than add.

Damsel in distress. Not keen on the half insect or the leaves on the right. Good as a record of a wounded specimen.

Female Common Blue. Impressive sharpness on the upper half but plane of focus could be better, I think it really needs to be side on to be optimal. And higher in the frame, too much dead space in the composition.

Upside Down Bumblebee. I don't think upside down is particularly comfortable viewing. I think upside down works when there is a clearly right way up element, such as a flower. A bee eye can suffer as can the damselfly eye and again it is the shallow depth of field that is responsible for the enhanced illusion of softness.

Launchpad and yellow and green. I'm not a fan of that look. Foreground vegetation against a black background doesn't work for me with macro. For me flah in macro has to be difficult to identify.

OK, tax.

The 55-300 would make a very versatile travel lens with great IQ around its sweet spot. I don't regret getting rid of mine, I do regret not buying it back at a knock down price

To be honest, prices what they are at the moment it doesn't seem worth selling anything.

A town called Beer sounds my kind of place. A nice collection.

I like a bit of vintage treatment. For it to work for me though then it really needs to look like a vintage image with all that entails. The windows don't look right to me - there is a suspicion of PVC. But it is the overall impression on first sight, the ultra wide angle that just betrays any authenticity for me.

I like the second, nice warm tones, a natural looking landscape shot and the simple composition does it justice.

Deckchairs is a tried and tested motif, I think this needs a little more space.

All the shots have a bit of a harsh look about the processing. That could be down to resizing, or maybe too sharp in places. It is accentuated too by the strong contrast of a nice day. I wonder if that contrast might suit mono.

A good sense of place conveyed with this set.

No Gareth that's fine. I just don't understand it. My approach of 'don't blow the highlights' works for me as I hate blown highlights (unless used creatively like Snappychappy). If I concentrate on how I want midtones to look then I risk blowing the highlights, as I see it.

An interesting set as always, varied in terms of subject and look and gives a really good sense of occasion. The clearly bold approach provokes some great reactions too. Some are a little harshly processed but much less so than on some previous sets. Not going to pick a favourite as the strength of the set is the set.

It's a fair point and one that is the polar opposite of my approach. So it would be good to see the results.

I have checked my camera. It is set to centre weighted average or 'the middle one'. I think the bloke in the factory chose it for me.

Thanls Nigel. I don't really have a clue about what you are saying. How about some pictorial examples. Show me how it should be done and I'll learn to use my camera, honest.

I think there should be an odd number. Maybe three, maybe five.

I mean be less modest in tone.

Yes, those images. I would put Anita on the front page. If Gary Hickin thinks it is fine art then it is fine art.

I'm not that keen on the website. I don't think it displays your work to its best advantage. Just my personal view:

Home Page:

There are too many photos for my liking and butted up against each other isn't the best way to display them. I don't like having to scroll down on this page.

I like the idea of the title and I know how it is derived. But someone coming to the site new might find it odd.

What I want to learn from a homepage is a brief overview of the photographer and just a few best of images - a teaser trailer if you like.

A brief one line bio would make sense of the title too. Blow your own trumpet.



About:

I think the syntax could flow better. I think it could be less modest.

Galleries:

I cilck on Galleries and nothing happens, so I click again and again. I then work out I have to access images through the drop down menus.

A page with a headline image per gallery would be good, in addition to direct access through the drop down menu.

Some galleries have space between the images and some don't. Whatever the approach it is best consistent. The difference in sizes jars for me. For example, Have I Got Nudes Fot You - the second photo down on the left is not exactly flattered by the one to the immediate right. The first two images don't appear to contain any nudes. The central portrait dominates everything else.


The content is stunning. I think it could be displayed much better. I think a less is more ethos would pay off.

There are two photos I think are among your very best - Holly In A Box and Anita. I can't see them.