"The Macro and Close-up photo critique gallery is intended for macro and close-up photos of nature. Generally, the actual physical size of the area depicted by the image should be about 4-inches across or less. Staged, set-up, or studio shots must be stated as such."
Four inches across is very small. Any possibility at all that we can modify the 4-inch guidelines in Macro/Close-up to something larger so that it can encompass our insect images? In my opinion insect images belong so much more to the close-up category than the wildlife category.
Posted by Luke Ormand on October 11, 2011 at 7:00 PM
For what it's worth - I think that rule is rarely paid attention too. Obviously if it's something small (butterfly, dragonfly, frog, salamander) it's allowed in as long as it's a close-up shot and not an environmental shot (that is to say the subject is small in the frame)
Yeah, I noticed that, Luke. Sadly for me (and I'm serious about that), I have real trouble not following the rules. I'm the oldest of four children, that's probably why.
Posted by Wayne Jones on October 12, 2011 at 1:13 PM
Barbara, I think many of use take "rules" seriously, even if they are in the form of "guidelines," and that's a good thing!
Certainly there are gray area between galleries (for instance many flora shots are close-ups, and many close-ups depict vertibrates that you would expect to see in the Wildlife gallery). Guidlelines should minimize the gray areas, but that will not work unless (a) guidelines are enforced, and (b) guidelines are adjusted as needed to address issues such as the one you bring up here.
Specifically, why is the macro guideline not expanded to say six inches if the moderators routinley accept images in that range? If such actions don't happen, the gallery caters to those who ignore guidelines, and punishes those who take them seriously. All viewers then suffer too, not knowing where to find images of a certain type. Enforce guidelines or change them.
Posted by Charlie Baugh on October 12, 2011 at 2:25 PM
This is good. We are dealing with one of mankinds perhaps most difficult problems to solve. Writting rules (guidelines) that really cover all things they are intended to cover AND trying to make varying situations fit withing the written rule.
I've been rather upset at some of the variation of application of guidelines but have come to see that NPN management and membership work in the direction of coming togeather in thinking rather than dividing. It, I think, is one of the most outstanding things about all of us.
Charlie
Posted by Varina Patel on October 12, 2011 at 7:51 PM
Remember, the lines you quote for the macro gallery - and other galleries as well - are guidelines... not hard and fast rules. They are meant to give a general idea for help with categorization. They include words like "generally" and "about". Nobody is going to take out a tape measure and measure the bug they are shooting before taking the photo. That's really not the point. We're here to learn from one another - not stress each other out.
In general, bugs are perfectly acceptable in the macro gallery... you'll find thousands of examples there. (Personally, I think that bigger bugs - tarantulas for example - should be categorized as small dogs or rodents. If you can fit a collar on it... if you can run your fingers through it's smooth fur.... if you could feed it kibbles...it's not a bug anymore. But that's a whole different topic! )
Posted by Wayne Jones on October 12, 2011 at 10:16 PM
Well said, Varina. The guidelines for the Macro & Close-up Gallery may in fact be the best example of the inexact nature of guidelines, which allow both members and moderators some "breathing room."
To tell the truth, I actually had in mind some very precise rules (click on "About This Gallery" and you will see they are not labeled guidelines, guidance or suggestions) in another gallery when I said "Enforce guidelines or change them." I am still mulling over the idea of articulating those thoughts, but after being unduly harsh today in this thread, I'll try very hard to get the facts straight before commenting again on the similar issues. Thanks for comments -- which are both cordial and informative, and for all you do for NPN.
Posted by Bruce King on October 13, 2011 at 11:52 AM
Call me a rebel but I post my images wherever I want to and let the monitors decide if it fits in that particular gallery. I once posted a closeup of a leaf in ESS and the monitor mentioned it but didn't move it. I don't do it to cause trouble but often I take a shot with a certain element in my mind as the subject when actually there may be something in there that may seem more central to someone else. I've also posted shots in flora that had insects perched on a flower or whatever. I think the subject is what the shooter says it is, not the viewer but I have no problem with a monitor moving my image to another gallery if they feel it doesn't fit. I choose not to overthink it, after all most of what we do here is subjective.
Discussion
7 repliesFour inches across is very small. Any possibility at all that we can modify the 4-inch guidelines in Macro/Close-up to something larger so that it can encompass our insect images? In my opinion insect images belong so much more to the close-up category than the wildlife category.
Certainly there are gray area between galleries (for instance many flora shots are close-ups, and many close-ups depict vertibrates that you would expect to see in the Wildlife gallery). Guidlelines should minimize the gray areas, but that will not work unless (a) guidelines are enforced, and (b) guidelines are adjusted as needed to address issues such as the one you bring up here.
Specifically, why is the macro guideline not expanded to say six inches if the moderators routinley accept images in that range? If such actions don't happen, the gallery caters to those who ignore guidelines, and punishes those who take them seriously. All viewers then suffer too, not knowing where to find images of a certain type. Enforce guidelines or change them.
I've been rather upset at some of the variation of application of guidelines but have come to see that NPN management and membership work in the direction of coming togeather in thinking rather than dividing. It, I think, is one of the most outstanding things about all of us.
Charlie
In general, bugs are perfectly acceptable in the macro gallery... you'll find thousands of examples there. (Personally, I think that bigger bugs - tarantulas for example - should be categorized as small dogs or rodents.
To tell the truth, I actually had in mind some very precise rules (click on "About This Gallery" and you will see they are not labeled guidelines, guidance or suggestions) in another gallery when I said "Enforce guidelines or change them." I am still mulling over the idea of articulating those thoughts, but after being unduly harsh today in this thread, I'll try very hard to get the facts straight before commenting again on the similar issues. Thanks for comments -- which are both cordial and informative, and for all you do for NPN.