A macro picture of a tiny silver charm on a bracelet, half immersed in water. Natural light, taken with 50mm Nikkor and Kenko extension tubes to achieve larger than 1:1 magnification ratio.
No joke! I fell in love with this little snake charm (I love snakes, but in the wild, not as pets) and when Tina announced the competition, it was obvious I will have to do this, if anything at all. I literally had 2 hours free yesterday, and some sunshine, and even though I thought I'm gonna miss the deadline I thought - what the heck! Thank you though I love this one, I actually love all of the ones I posted, I was agonising over which one to enter. Then I asked 3 different people, and they all had a different favourite! And now you have a different favourite as well! It was impossible to choose... I chose the froggy one because it made Andy laugh and he said it was the best, also, I have to say that that one turned exactly the way I planned, everything in it worked, whereas all the rest, they are lovely but I have something that I wish I could have done differently (like here, the light is just a bit too hard; not much but still, I would have liked it somewhat softer). So I ended up entering the froggy, but I don't know if I chose wisely or not. Time will tell
I loved the froggy as well as a matter of fact, but I can imagine how difficult it might be to get so much potential in a bracelet such as this to work really well in a macro shot. One of the things I find with jewellery (not your bracelet by the way) is how very rough, even gold is, when magnified so much and sometimes this really distracts from the beauty of what one is trying to show off. (As I say, your bracelet didn't produce that aspect on magnification, and I do know those pieces are incredibly well made.) I just couldn't for the life of me think of anything I have that would look totally magical in a macro shot, yet I have very expensive things, particularly rings. Somehow my imagination doesn't work well for me when I try to compose things to look "different".
Anyway, well done for what you did and I wish you well in the contest too
Awww, thank you sweetheart That's so true, that metals look so rough close up, in the froggy picture you can see quite a bit of that whereas when you look at the charm with just your eyes, the head is only about 2 mm in diameter and it all looks really light and tidy, very pretty, but close up it's so different! i suppose it is important for it to look good on the bracelet, and some of those imperfections serve to make facial expression and such. I have a little butterfly charm I wanted to shoot in a droplet, ring would work well in that setting too, but it was all much more trouble than this setup so I didn't do that. But I might someday
Thank you though
It was impossible to choose... I chose the froggy one because it made Andy laugh and he said it was the best, also, I have to say that that one turned exactly the way I planned, everything in it worked, whereas all the rest, they are lovely but I have something that I wish I could have done differently (like here, the light is just a bit too hard; not much but still, I would have liked it somewhat softer).
So I ended up entering the froggy, but I don't know if I chose wisely or not. Time will tell
Anyway, well done for what you did and I wish you well in the contest too
That's so true, that metals look so rough close up, in the froggy picture you can see quite a bit of that whereas when you look at the charm with just your eyes, the head is only about 2 mm in diameter and it all looks really light and tidy, very pretty, but close up it's so different! i suppose it is important for it to look good on the bracelet, and some of those imperfections serve to make facial expression and such.
I have a little butterfly charm I wanted to shoot in a droplet, ring would work well in that setting too, but it was all much more trouble than this setup so I didn't do that. But I might someday