> I did not realize it was a Micro-shot. Well done. Chris The way an image was taken, whether it is macro, micro, film, digital - whether it required a 4-day treck up a mountain of just stepping out of a car at a viewpoint layby. None of these things should really matter, only whether you like an image as shown or not. I've always wondered myself too - from watching camera club judges ;o) - why a photo of OPA (other people's art) gets slated yet a bog-standard straight on picture of the centre of a rose sprayed with water can get top marks!!!! Your comment about the photo (all photos?) was right: flower shots are a largely just a record of something god created (or man bred via cross polination) [addendum: or Satan's children forced upon us via GM]. There is to me almost no justification for blanking OPA yet raving over G'sA For me first impression is everything: what it said to you when you first saw it is something to take on board. The fact that I "saw" the shot before I even set the tripod up - that I realised the long (10-inch) flower stalks radiating from a central stem would, out of focus, give me a background I wanted. That I aligned the camera to as many of the flower's tips as I could - these are only things of personal satisfaction: the how not the what if that makes any sense. Maybe next week I will apply a PS filter to a flower shot and see if that tickes your fancy? Thanks for taking time to review the gallery. Bob
