Monday in Nature, September 4, 2017

I have a question about what's considered "Nature" seeing now that some have posted microbes and macros of natural elements with no reference where they were shot.

Can I post abstract styled macro shots of soap bubbles in my kitchen. Of course since it's in my kitchen that's hand of man, but then how do we know microscopic close-ups of microbes were shot in the same place.

My real reason for asking this is I can't find a venue in any of PN forums where I can post these unbelievable looking macro shots of soap bottle bubbles. I've got so many of them and quite a few of them are different from each other.

Macro, Abstract and No Words forum require a title where as "Nature" is more broad.

I have a question about what's considered "Nature" seeing now that some have posted microbes and macros of natural elements with no reference where they were shot.

 

Can I post abstract styled macro shots of soap bubbles in my kitchen. Of course since it's in my kitchen that's hand of man, but then how do we know microscopic close-ups of microbes were shot in the same place.

 

My real reason for asking this is I can't find a venue in any of PN forums where I can post these unbelievable looking macro shots of soap bottle bubbles. I've got so many of them and quite a few of them are different from each other.

 

Macro, Abstract and No Words forum require a title where as "Nature" is more broad.

Tim, my microbes shot was taken at Cullinan Ranch wetlands restoration site in northern California. It's a straight shot of a naturally-occurring phenomenon easily seen by the naked eye, photographed with a Nikon D810 with a 70-300 lens, 1/125 sec, f/32, 800 ISO at 200 mm at a distance of about six-eight feet. I did say that it had been taken at Cullinan Ranch but had neglected to state "northern California." It was not a microscopic close-up, I do not have that kind of equipment. These microbes are very well established in this area, I'd posted previous photos of them in another form, also easily visible to the naked eye, over the last couple of years or so. This shot is of millions and millions of tiny cells growing together, forming a kind of puddle.

As for posting macros of soap bubble shots, I take those, too. They are amazing, aren't they? I post them under Abstract, Macro, or, sometimes, in the Equipment forum. Since my only macro lens is on an Olympus, I post to the Olympus forum. Titling them has never been a problem: "Soap Bubbles 0022," for instance, or just plain "Bubbles" works for me. Some people use technical data as title, kind of lens, f/stop, shutter speed, etc. You could use "Untitled" as a title. A title should not limit where you post.

Sandy, et al,

If it were for me to determine, I might do it differently, but we don't always get to do it our way. I'm guessing there are some people here that I might not get along with easily, but that is the same where I work, play, etc.

I have come to understand how we do the MiN and actually believe there are a lot of very positive things about the way we do it. I think it is one of the best recurring posts that occur on photo.net. I think other people feel the same which is why criticism comes out when the guidelines aren't followed. I don't think it is personal, but rather a fear that something good might get messed up.

I definitely would like to keep having the chance to misidentify the bird pictures you post. :-)

Rod

unbelievable looking macro shots of soap bottle bubbles.

Tim, are you talking about those awesome soap bubble images that can be shot with the beautiful clouds or forest or even a butterfly in the background? This is an iffy area. Guess one needs to think about the origin of the bubbles and the audience perception of whether it is a natural object. I guess Robin's test comes into play. :)

I have a question about what's considered "Nature" seeing now that some have posted microbes and macros of natural elements with no reference where they were shot.

 

Can I post abstract styled macro shots of soap bubbles in my kitchen. Of course since it's in my kitchen that's hand of man, but then how do we know microscopic close-ups of microbes were shot in the same place.

 

My real reason for asking this is I can't find a venue in any of PN forums where I can post these unbelievable looking macro shots of soap bottle bubbles. I've got so many of them and quite a few of them are different from each other.

 

Macro, Abstract and No Words forum require a title where as "Nature" is more broad.

Tim,

I don't know you, but I'd wonder if you are being a bit of a devil's advocate.

The biggest reason your idea wouldn't work in MiN is that it is in your kitchen and you created the bubbles. Hand of man. There might be very rare instances this sort of thing could be captured in a truly natural setting, but that would be seldom seen. I would probably personally not see it as belonging in the nature forum at all, but I'm not sure there is a prohibition of it outside MiN.

There is no question that we have to trust people, because it is impossible to always validate whether the rules have been followed.

I have plenty of fungal micrographs. The world at that level is full of amazing shapes, forms, and beauty. I'd love to post them on MiN, but they simply don't qualify because of all the hand of woman involved in getting them. I'm not going to nit pick with this sort of thing. We can have a thread for nature micrographs, though Edwin and I may be the only ones who come to play. Edwin is much better than I at this genre.:)

There's a lot to be said for consistency. We've tried (Shun and myself), over the years, to be just that with the enforcement of the stated guidelines. They're not arbitrary. (written while Dawson posted, not directed your way) It's not fair to anyone if there are guidelines for posting, but then let it be a free for all. Why should anyone be allowed to blow off the guidelines and get away with it? No one should, and no one is. But it's also just plain disrespectful to those of us who have been around this thread for many years to knowingly flaunt stated guidelines. There's no good reason for it. The tit for tat isn't helpful, quite the contrary. It's again, disrespectful.

My real reason for asking this is I can't find a venue in any of PN forums.......

Really????? Aren't those the ones you posted in Abstract many times? Sorry. It's soap. It's more science than nature. Plenty of us shoot amazing macro images without the use of a microscope. There are insanely good macro photographers here.

This discussion creeps into MiN occasionally and, unfortunately, tends to eclipse the thread. Please, everyone stop now. We're here for the Nature, not a hassle.

Dawson, where is the new home, if you don't mind telling?

To our friends in the path of Irma, please be careful. Many Min folks are in Florida.

Sigh. The number of posts about the rules almost equal the number of images posted. What do you really care about? Sharing photos about nature or purity of content conditional to arbitrary rules? And yes I haven't posted any of my mediocre photos lately because my equipment is out on the Atlantic en route to my new home.

That has always been the case. People like debates and controversy, and they tend to be far more aggressive in forums when they don't see one another in person. Years ago on this very forum, there were occasional heated debates about environmental issues, and there are reasons that photo.net shut down all debates about politics, religion ... altogether.

Anyone else has a good nature image to share this week?

Anyone else has a good nature image to share this week?

I'm not sure it qualifies as a "good" nature image, but it might make it as an "amusing" nature image. This is a scan of a Kodachrome slide from several years ago, from the Maasai Mara in Kenya:

What the heck is MiN? Missing In Nature?

Never mind. Way too many snappy people in this forum. I'll do you guys a favor and just stay out of here.

"The Rules" always cause such consternation whenever they come up. This is the first hummingbird shot I've gotten that meets the rules, previous attempts have been at the feeders (Bright red plastic counts as hand of man?).

This is another one of my stacking efforts, inspired by a Sally Mack web photo awhile back. The web is on a species of Thelephora, about 2 inches across, and there are 5 images in the stack. I admit that I got lost in the web as I tried to focus through. The bug was a happy surprise. Almost all of my nature shooting lately has been for a photography workshop I'm giving this weekend on how to use photography as an aid to ID of fungi and wildflowers. It should be fun.

This is another one of my stacking efforts, inspired by a Sally Mack web photo awhile back. The web is on a species of Thelephora, about 2 inches across, and there are 5 images in the stack. I admit that I got lost in the web as I tried to focus through. The bug was a happy surprise. Almost all of my nature shooting lately has been for a photography workshop I'm giving this weekend on how to use photography as an aid to ID of fungi and wildflowers. It should be fun.

[ATTACH=full]1208116[/ATTACH]

Laura, isn't it cool how by sharing we can inspire each other?

I've fooled around with stacking but haven't quite gotten it, yet. So much to remember with modern, digital cameras, I'm not even close to even knowing what the options are on my "new" camera let alone which ones will be most useful. Learning, though! And learning that stacking is one of the options I need to try.

Sally, yes, absolutely. There used to be a contributor here who was amazing with reflections. Often I would look at a body of water, pondering the options, and wonder to myself how he would shoot it. When I saw this small web I wondered the same of you. Gordon B.'s mushroom photos are always amazing, and we sometimes comment in the woods how he would probably appreciate this or that mushroom. It's easy/good to feel the inspiration of others after spending so much time together in this forum.

Stacking can be really easy or quite challenging. Bugs move in and out, the little breeze that moves things ever so slightly, racking in too far and leaving an entire area OOF, accidentally bumping the tripod, or a host of other things while taking the images. There is a good tutorial somewhere in the pnet archives about stacking. There's also lots of good software. Plenty of folks can help when you are ready to give it a try.