Topic: General Discussion / THANKS

Thanks for featuring my “fly” !
Yes it was a very intersting photograph to take.
Glad that you enjoyed it.

Topic: General Discussion / Thank you very much!

You are more than welcome – it’s a very cool image and really shows off what this group is all about! : )

Topic: General Discussion / Thank you very much!

To the hosts for featuring one of my images -

It’s such an honor and I appreciate it very much!
You’ve made my week!

Thanks again!
~Moxie

Topic: General Discussion / Submission unacceptable

Karl – could you please post a link to the image in question. Thanks.

Topic: General Discussion / Submission unacceptable

I am confused as to why my last submission was rejected given it is a 1:1 macro though looking through the images I see 99% are either of flowers, bugs or water!

Topic: General Discussion / Submission unacceptable

As a new moderator, I’m still sticking to the old 1:1 rule, so there may still be some images rejected if (I think) they are not actually 1:1 on the sensor/film.
This rule is really quite difficult to enforce as we do not know the actual size of the object and the sensor size unless the photographer tells us!
Please check this link for more information:
Dpreview.com
If it’s going to be 3.5cmx2.5cm then I will follow this rule from now on.
Please resubmit your image if your work fulfills this and other requirements.
Remember that this is NOT the only criteria (read the group rules here )

Hopefully we can do away with most inconsistencies in rejections!
Please help by providing more info about your work.

Topic: General Discussion / Submission unacceptable

As I said before there are pictures of whole flowers in this group and I guess I am not understanding why they fit and mine doesnt and that is where the rub is. They do not look more macro than mine. For example Spanish Wet Rose and Yellow flower, like on page 8 or 9. Those do not look any more macro that the ones I did that were not accepted. All I want to know is what is the difference. I am understnading a bit about your 1:1 and will read further, but if you can tell me the difference so I have a reference. thanks

Topic: General Discussion / Submission unacceptable

Please don’t confuse this group with other “macro” groups. The group name is 1:1 Macro Photograph. This is a clear difference between us and the other guys.

To try and understand the whole 3.5cm x 2.5sm thing, I suggest you take a ruler outside with you next time you plan to shoot something. Measure an object – determine visually how much of the object fits within 3.5cm x 2.5cm – then take your camera and try to fit only that part in the WHOLE frame. Most likely no matter how close you get with a point and shoot camera you will not be able to fill the frame with that small of an area. Most people believe if they use the macro setting on their camera then that automatically means they are taking a macro image, this is not always the case.

1:1 macro photography, in most cases, takes more than a point and shoot camera. Greater than that requires special lenses and set ups – but the outcome is usually quite spectacular to behold. A whole new world opens up when a photographer gets that close to something. I am amazed daily by the images submitted to this group.

All I can suggest is that people interested in true 1:1 macro or greater photography read up on it – buy some books, check out the internet – go to the forums within this group where people have discussed equipment and set ups they use to obtain these types of images.

Don’t be offended if your images are determined not to be 1:1 or greater. There are plenty of just “macro” groups on redbubble.

This is a great place to start Macro Photography

Please try not to be offended or get bent out of shape when an image is rejected. Think of it as an opportunity to learn more – of if 1:1 macro or greater is not your thing than please submit your images to the other macro groups out there.

Topic: General Discussion / Submission unacceptable

This is a continuing problem within all the macro groups it seems.

To be a macro is an “in your face” shot.

I have a very small Olympus FE 240 which does not have extra lenses, but does have two macro settings. I figured that if the image filled the frame, with no extra bits outside, it should be accptted into 1:1, as I understand your previous detaield explanation to me. The 3.5×2.5cm loses me totally, I have no idea what you are talking about, nor doe I understamd how I would go about finding this out. When I take my macros I almost have my nose in the plants and the bees and I compete for space :) – so I guess this could be classed as macro or super macro (my camera setting)

Topic: General Discussion / Submission unacceptable

“I need to pull out 3.5×2.5 cm section out of that whole flower” – exactly – if the area you are photographing is no larger than 3.5cm x 2.5cm than you are 1:1 – of course as John said – 3.5cm x 2.5 cm is assuming you have a full frame sensor on your camera – which most digital cameras do not – theirs are usually smaller. When I view images that are submitted I try to figure out if the image would fit in that size of an area – sometimes this is harder than others. It’s not a perfect science by any means – but with some images it is blatantly obvious that there is just no way it is 1:1 – for instance if a whole rose or lily is in the shot.

I do have a camera with a full frame sensor – I shoot with a Canon EOS 5D – and I use a sigma macro lens. But still most of my images are not 1:1 unless I’m about an inch from the object when I’m shooting it. Macro images are what I enjoy shooting more than anything else – but I’m no expert on the subject that is for sure. All I can do is continue to learn along with the group members and make this group the best it can be.

Topic: General Discussion / Submission unacceptable

The quote below I got from the other forum. I believe that this is part of the frustration level. I was frustrated that I saw a rose in there that didn’t even look macro and yet mine were rejected. I appreciate you explaining this a bit better it makes a tad more sense. Thank you John for bringing up your points as well. I don’t have a lens that creates these 1:1 and am not really sure the concept, I am a visual person. So take my rose for example, I need to pull out 3.5×2.5 cm section out of that whole flower? I am having trouble with the concept and yes I read the other stuff on it, still not sure.
Thanks, back to photo 101 group

“If your image gets rejected you get one of the four pre-made statements written by redbubble along with your rejection. If you want a more personal approach to why your image was rejected post a link to the image here and I can tell you EXACTLY why it was rejected.”

Topic: General Discussion / submission not accepted.

If your image gets rejected you get one of the four pre-made statements written by redbubble along with your rejection. If you want a more personal approach to why your image was rejected post a link to the image here and I can tell you EXACTLY why it was rejected.

Topic: General Discussion / submission not accepted.

So, basically, you won’t say why the pictures are rejected? okay.

Topic: General Discussion / Submission unacceptable

John, you are correct but unfortunately, there is no way for us to tell what type of camera the image was shot with so our general rule of thumb is the 3.5cm x 2.5cm object size.

I agree on your second point as well – it is very hard to tell if an image is truly 1:1 macro but we are trying very hard to adhere to the idea of what this group was set out to be about by it’s creators.

Topic: General Discussion / submission not accepted.

Unfortunately the reasons for rejection are written by redbubble and done in a manner to meet all the groups needs.

Topic: General Discussion / submission not accepted.

I wasn’t sure if one of mine met the strict criteria of the group, put it forward anyway and it was indeed rejected. Not clear exactly why, but will try something else and see if that fits. Might be an idea to give clearer reasons if that’s possible guys?

Topic: General Discussion / Submission unacceptable

but Tamme if taken with a medium format camera they would be macro. If a 3.5cm x 2.5cm object was shot with most Pand S and cropped DSLR cameras – it wouldn’t be macro.

The concept of a 1:! macro is a little awkward to define these days and perhaps it needs to be taken as an object size instead.

Topic: General Discussion / Submission unacceptable

Rhonda,

Both of the images you submitted to the group were not 1:1 Macro (or greater) images. This group is not just about macro images it’s bout 1:1. It’s all about the view finder view. In your view finder the image should be no bigger than 3.5cm x 2.5cm of the object you’re shooting. Both the rose and the iris are much bigger than this.

Topic: General Discussion / Submission unacceptable

Normally I never write in these forums but I do not completely understand why my macro shots were denied but would understand if I knew why. I always look at the rules and follow them as I understand them. I realize that you have a bunch of photos that come through and it is virtually impossible to leave feedback on them all. However,I just joined, this was my first submission, my first attempt at macro (it even says in my pics) and I think it would have been nice to get some feedback as to what caused its rejection. It was my best work so far since I am new. I went through and looked at some photos on the site and saw a few that were not as macro as mine so I am not sure what it was that was wrong. Since you rejected them both and your rule is to not keep submitting unsuitable images or you will be removed from the group, I will save you the time. Thank you
“grand opening and untitled”

Topic: General Discussion / submission not accepted.

????????????????????????????????,Please please explain why Dwarf Lionfish wasent accepted into the group as it clearly meets the guidelines.i have been a member for a long time now & find it insulting that you question my ability to recognise a macro shot?or the group guidelines!!!please explain!!!

Topic: General Discussion / submission not accepted.

Ahhhhh…....now that makes it clear. I use a big screen on my Sony and not a viewfinder so I”m bongle! haha

Topic: General Discussion / submission not accepted.

Hi TingyWende

It’s all about the view finder view, not how big the moss is. In your view finder the image should be no bigger than 3.5cm x 2.5cm of the object you’re shooting.

If you have a look at your image, you have the ‘one inch moss’ yes – bt you have much more than that as well in the whole image, which would end up being more than one inch, and far greater than the 3.5cm x 2.5cm needed to be within 1:1 macro.

Cheers
Robyn

Topic: General Discussion / submission not accepted.

Okay…..I read that and it is what I had in my head for ratios. I would appreciate it if you would look at the photo I posted the link for and tell me what the ratio of that shot is. As I said they were about 1 inch high as they stood on the forest floor….because I’m really kerfuffled and could use your opinion as a jumping off point to get this right. Not that being kerfuffled isn’t normal for me but I really would like to get this right. Thanks!

Topic: General Discussion / submission not accepted.

I’m not sure if you guys have gone here yet – but I’ve found it to be the simplest explanation of what true 1:1 macro or greater is all about. Remember this group is about 1:1 or better not just “macro” images. It’s all a bit confusing but hopefully the link will bring you some insight. Hope that helps. : )

Topic: General Discussion / submission not accepted.

I too have the same question.

I’m struggling with what exactly macro is and would like to know why an image of mine was rejected so I can learn from it and submit a better photo next time.