timcorio

I'm still pretty new to photo.net and have been suprised by some of the comments

about ratings and critiques. Most of the comments have been either that there

are too many "mediocer" ratings, or that there are too many "poor" ratings.

There has been little discussion about critiques.

I had seen the ratings and critiques as open feedback. There are no formal

rules about how to rate the images or what to put in a critique. Each critic

and apply their own judgement and artistic biases. Most people will apply a

different set of rules that I would. This can be a good thing because it gives

us a more personal response. It can be bad because it is more difficult to

interpret.

I have viewed ratings and critiques (mostly of other's photos) and taken them as

rough guides as to how a divers group would respond.

Since there have been several (appearently emotional) posts lately about the

poor quality of the ratings I was wondering two things:

1) How do people use these ratings?

2) Why is it so important to the any given photographer that the

ratings they get (or see on other's photos) be similar to the ratings

they would give?

The only change in the input most people give that I would request is to provide

more critical critiques. Most of the critiques I've read have been a simple

comment of something like "good job". This is decent feedback, but I find

comments on specific things that can be improved in the image to be of more

value. Identification of what makes an image good is also of great value.

No matter how a person rates or critiques a photo we should be thankfull that

people are taking the time and effort to provide their feedback.

Thank You,

Tim Corio

I'm working on a project photographing coins and need a solution for

magnification of greater than 1x, perphaps up to 40x.

So far, the most promising solution I've found has been a pair of Canon lenses

orignally designed for the FD system. These are the Macrophoto Lens 20mm f/3.5

and the Macrophoto Lens 35mm f/2.8. They are described here

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdmacro/2035macro.htm.

Does anyone have any experience using these lenses with an EOS system? Can you

contrast image quality with what I might get using a microscope?

Thanks,

Tim

I want to take micro-photographs of coins. Currently I'm using a Canon 5D, EF

100mm F2.8 Macro USM lens, and MR-14EX Macro Ring Light to get up to 1x

magnification. This is working great. But, I need to supplement this with

higher magnifications.

I'll need magnifications from about 4x to 40x. I assume the best setup for this

will be a microscope with three or four objective lenses. Aside from this

assumption I only have questions:

Are there any good resources (books, web sites, ...) to help me understand the

issues I should expect to face?

Can I expect a microscope's optics to give me a full image without vignetting?

How should I light a coin on a microscope?

Are there other good options?

So far this is the best microphotography related site I've found:

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/photo2/photo2.htm.

Thanks,

Tim