Douglas wrote:
> Has anyone ever sold a macro shot of a fly, a spider or a any other
> insect except to a book or magazine publisher?
Does it matter? If it is sold, does it matter if the buyer
is a book or a bloke off the street?
The majority of people take photos for their own enjoyment,
not for financial gain. Until Brett recently posted his fly,
I'd never seen what a fly's tongue looks like. I've never
wondered, but it was certainly a "wow" moment in our
household (albeit short-lived). I would never buy a 30x20"
print of the fly. I probably wouldn't look at the photo
again. But I'm sure when Brett took the photo he said wow,
just as I did. And for that, the time he spent taking the
photo was worthwhile.
>
> It seems to me there's a few cretins wasting an awful lot of time
> taking worthless macro photos of common insects and using very
> expensive gear to do it... For no purpose other than to waste even
> more time and money posting the pics for group comment.
That's the thing about a hobby. It doesn't matter that you
use expensive gear. You don't have to justify your gear
purchases by the income that it earns, you justify it by the
enjoyment it brings you.
My other two main hobbies other than photography, are model
railway and aquariums. Both are money holes, but I enjoy
doing it. Is model railway a waste of time, because I will
never take a paying passenger? Should I instead buy a real
locomotive, some carriages, and start a business of it? Are
my aquariums a waste of time because I will never have
paying customers come to look at my fish, like they do at
"Underwater World"?
Personally, in my current financial situation, I can't
justify huge expense on photography gear, so I get by with
kit lenses and just a couple of extras that I managed to
pick up cheap. If I was to post links of my photos, there
would be criticism that it isn't sharp, etc etc etc. I don't
care, I didn't take the photos to sell, I took them for me
to enjoy. I do enjoy seeing the photos from Brett, Troy,
Mark, occasionally Rita, and even yourself. They serve as
inspiration, and the praise and constructive criticisms from
the group give hints to help me improve my own stuff.
Your recent frangipani shot was a perfect example of this. I
wouldn't be happy with that shot if I took it, because of
that piece of dead grass that I mentioned. So I made a
mental note to myself, that if I try a similar type of shot,
to watch for stuff like that. In theory, my own work should
improve. In practice - well we'll wait and see lol.
>
> Is there a hidden agenda here somewhere or have digital cameras
> produced a whole new generation of happy snappers with an over
> abundance of ego and an under supply of imagination?
Without doubt there is an abundance of happy snappers. But
consider this. By far the vast majority of photos that are
taken, printed, put in albums or frames, and then looked at
repeatedly over the years, are NOT professional photographs.
They are happy snaps.
Actually I would give this advice to all the photo posters
out there - in addition to your spiders, flies, flowers,
boats in Manly harbour etc where you are striving for
technical excellence, take some happy snaps - especially of
your family. In 5 years, 10 years, 20 years etc, when you
are looking at your photos, I can guarantee you that it will
be the happy snaps of your family that you get more pleasure
looking at.
>> Stay informed about: Insect macros 
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
