Ok, which is more difficult?

Which is more difficult, shooting macro or wide?

  • Macro is more difficult

    Votes: 13 28.9%
  • Wide is more difficult

    Votes: 32 71.1%

  • Total voters
    45
  • Poll closed .

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

mikerault

Contributor
Messages
2,587
Reaction score
1
Location
Alpharetta, GA
# of dives
200 - 499
A macro shot of one more Blenny or a wide angle shot of a wreck in not so clear water? It seems many of the contests out there are won by folks shooting macro, usually on the cute factor. Yes, it requires great equipment, yes, it requires patience, yes it requires getting strobe, lens, fstop, focus and exposure set properly (except with auto). But the blenny isn't going anywhere, the column of water between the lens and it is small so little chance for backscatter and haven't we seen enough shots of them?

When you have to have the proper combination of skill, good conditions, proper angle, and great equipment, patience, getting strobe, lens, fstop, focus and exposure set properly (except with auto) isn't wide more difficult? It is like the difference between shooting flower arrangements and shooting sports.
 
Been a photographer for some 35 years now, I only have one answer for you.

It's the WOW factor .....that gets the crowd wanting more.
 
I voted for wide, but not for the reasons you listed. To me it's harder to make a wide scene look "special". There are many many wide shots that are ho-hum, or too close to what someone else has done, or that just lack that certain something. Or they are just beautiful but just don't do anything for me. And talking about blennies not going anywhere - when's the last time a wreck disappeared and didn't reappear for the entire dive :wink: Your analogy of flowers and sports doesn't hold up very well either :wink:

But I certainly don't think that great macro shots are easy. Some of those tiny things don't sit still all the time. They are often under ledges, tucked in crevices or otherwise placed so good lighting and nailed focus are frustrating. Not to mention that it can take a keen eye to find them. And no, I never see enough macro stuff or super macro stuff :wink:

Any shot requires a whole host of things to come together properly to make that one image that makes you go "oooooo!!" Some people find wide more difficult because they don't shoot it very often or work in tough conditions or don't quite get the whole strobe placement thing or the composition thing. Some find macro more difficult because of the shallow depth of field and more critical focusing or because they don't have the patience to get the whole picture (composition again) instead of a snapshot.

Each type of photography presents its own challenges and rewards.
 
Depends on the subject matter, conditions, etc.

It also depends on what you (the artist) are trying to convey. What are you saying with the shot. If you have nothing to say, you may as well be shooting text book photos.

Few things are more boring than Nudibranchs. They slug along slowly, rasping out a meal from some inperceptable roughage and once in a while lay some eggs. You can take a text book shot of a Nudi - top down, and get it all in the frame... and its a big yawn. Or you can hunt for a better angle, a better look, find the one doing something silly, different, funny, amazing. You need to get in the sand, force yourself into a tight and uncomfortable place, brave the surge, brace, be patient, etc... With some practice and a good attitude, you can turn this boring bag of slime into art.

Can you really stomach one more dive mag CFWA of some tall, thin diver over a colorful ____________ (insert reef, wreck, school o' fish, whatever) in a tight, bright wetsuit, supline, legs fully extended, holding a dive light at some useless angle? Crimany. If I see another, I'll just gag right here.

I want to see shots that say something. Those CFWA shots say only one thing: look at me, I figured out the formula to get my stuff in a dive mag. Good for you.

It irks me.

The thing about Macro is there is so much more going on. The world belongs to the very small, and I am constantly surprised and amazed at the life that jams into a few square inches of ocean structure.

Is Macro easier? I think it is. Is it more interesting? Compared to the endless parade of cookie cutter CFWA, I think it is.

Do I love the wide vistas? Sure. Do I love the lighting Vadim uses on his B/W wreck pics? You bet - a thousand times more than some goofy hottie over some colorful whatever.

Most W/A is lit so poorly, with the hot spots and distortion that its just tough to look at. With macro it is much easier to luck into a nice image than it is with W/A.

W/A takes better gear, better conditions, better planning, more experience, better photo chops, more control, better planning..... you get the idea.

My $.02

---
Ken
 
Good photography is more difficult. Anyone can shoot a mediocre macro or wide shot, but it takes hard work, technical expertise and patience to shoot a great shot, wide or macro. With macro, you have to deal with focus at very close distances, where half an inch ruins the shot, strong lighting without blowout, water movement that makes it hard to hold the camera still or pushes the subject or things around it in and out of the picture, the aforementioned holes, shelves, rocks and subjects that are elusive. Wide angle requires good conditions, good lighting, good composition and the patience to find the right angle on the great reef, then wait for subjects to come into view in the right locations to enhance the composition. You need foreground that will be well lighted without midground that will end up two tone because the strobe won't reach it. Different species, apples and oranges, can't really compare.
 
I'm not a professional photographer, I voted for wide
 
Larry C:
Different species, apples and oranges, can't really compare.

That's what I was going to say.

Dennis posted a picture of a tiny pink crab on an anemone that was incredible and I know it wasn't easy to get all that right.

Catherine (I think - apologies if I'm wrong) posted a pic of a ray swimminig over a wreck that was so beautiful it hurt.

I'd be doing them a disservice be even trying to compare.
 
Wide angle is harder for me because I can't control (1) current that pushes me around while I try to get the angle, (2) natural light that disappears/ changes while I figure out the composition/ camera settings, (3) backscatters that ruin an otherwise acceptable photo, (4) fish/ diver that moves into my frame when I do not want them to... ocassionally I ended up with a nice (I think :blush:) macro shot but never for wide angle.
 
i think the 2 light sources of WA makes it more difficult for the vast majority of shooters to learn to balance the two and get a great WA photo rather than the (mostly) static light source of macro...
 
Great thoughts on both sides of the issues. I plan on pursuing more macro, now that I've got the camera for it. I guess I just get cheesed at contests that ignore the more difficult tecnical shots for the cute ones.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom