The definition of Macro= 1:1 or bigger. So on the sensor (or film) the object is the same size or bigger than in real life.
So please disqualify at leasts the entries that are not even 1:1 on the final photo. Up to 80% of entries are not macro.
Photo's of complete machines, shavers etc are definitely not macro photo's.Close-up photo's at best. They simply cannot be 1:1 on the sensor or film. O.K., a shaver could be 1:1, if you photographed it using 8x10 inch film.
(and Japanese trees in Kyoto are beautifull l...but not a machine)
But why should you read the rules. Just enter whatever you find first on your HD. And let your family and friends vote so you think you scored high in the challenge "Macro Machine". Keep on dreaming, the challenge host will not wake you up. Neither will this message, or did it?
Why spent hundreds of dollars more than a Panasonic FZ-100 with 1" sensor, all the lens you'll ever need, plenty of pixels, all positions you'll ever need display etc. No dust, no separate viewfinder. Or go for Sony RX10.
Yes, these are bigger. But once you have the extra, or just one GOOD, lens with this Nikon 1 V3, you probably will carry more. Not to mention the grip to get....enough grip.
Tip: you can make next Nikon 1 even smaller. By leaving the battery out (just a cable connector to the battery holder in your shirt pocket is enough, right). Of course Nikon will offer a special batteryholder to slide into the flash shoe. Just $ 49.-- including the extra short cable needed! Do not laugh please, Nikon 1 goes to places other camera builders do not dare to go. Down.
ifyou had cropped out the top 1/3 and left only the grass you had earned another star.
Try it, the big and dark wooden beams kill the fairytale magic.
read the rules! Where is the photographer?
How can you compare the prices of one creative "product" to another?
It becomes even more complicated if you realize that a wedding photographer delivers more than just photographs. How about the "feel good" factor, the "click" between the photographer, you and your guest? Are you willing to pay for the simple fact you can tell everybody your wedding pics will be taken by the famous......?
Sounds strange? Well, most people are willing to pay $3 for a beer that is worth $0,30. Why? Because they like the exclusive restaurant they selected for their wedding. The couple also pay a heap of money for the invitations which are basically just paper, right? How much for the flowers? And why is that designer brides dress so expensive?
Get the picture? It is freedom of choice for the consumer how much to spend on their wedding. It is up to the happy couple to go for "expensive" photographs or to spend it on drinks. Give them what they expect and you remain in business.
pocoloco: Is it allowed to combine two digital photo's? Or do you really require a photo from the film era post processed into a digital image?
In both cases, together with the statement "create imaginary views of life and places that belong more to your dream than to the real World " how should I interpret the rule not to overdo post processing?
Interesting. One person to set AND control the rules. Not sure if this is a good idea. Better not to take part in your own contests. Well that's my (humble) opinion.
If you state in the rules: "let's hope to see more of a photography and less of post-processing magic" why do you destroy this hope by entering heavily post processed photo's?
Watch out! The family of the designer of the Atomium charge copyright money for any picture of this monument. Yes, that is not a joke. They are serious (and somewhat stupid in my view). The same is through with the Eifel tower photographed by night. There is copyright on the way it is lit at night.
Just that you know
I like the fact that the man is NOT looking at the children. Now it appears he is checking the environment and guarding over the safety of the children.
Close cropping/composition ads to the feeling of intimacy. For a moment the three have their little moment of togetherness in a hostile worlds.
Suggestion for slight improvement: I like strong blacks, but on my calibrated screen there is allmost no detail in the shadow area of the leg of the men (knee area) and in his hair. I'm sure that on most non-calibrated screens this problem is non existent.
Anyway, make a very large print of this phote, frame it and be proud of this achievement!
Nice picture. But I think the high key effect of the face compared to the eyes is too much. Also the cloths are too dark for a pure high key photo.
Try bringing some more greys in the hair. Or tone down the dark greys in the cloths and the light greys in the chin and cheek area: bring everything except eyes and lips under 10% black. Less muddy.
Either way try to get a better balance. Now the photo splits into two parts. Above and under the eyes.
Expression and composition is spot on. So it is worth to spend some time improving the high key effect.
Perhaps my calibrated screen is different then yours. Allways measure with the eye dropper in Photoshop.