Smartphone with a lens from Smena-8m - a device for macro photography

After all, Caramor is a troll, and his constant rhyming has given himself away. And this topic is very likely created specifically to troll makrushnikov-home-made people who attach lenses and Soviet lenses to soap dishes, like me and Pan Stepova. Just in time, it appeared shortly after our battles in the topic "cameras", which Mr. Caramore allegedly insists on noticing. So I consider further discussion with Mr. Karamor unnecessary. But with Pan Stepov, why not [s]compete with centipedes [s] to discuss. In the first picture, the angle is bad and the GRIP on the head was enough. The second one is slightly worse than I would have done without the nozzle. At first I thought that the bee's terrible wiggling was caused by flying (that would be excusable), but no, it's fast asleep with a leaf clutched in its mandibles. I would hesitate to post this as an illustration of my photographic power. Otherwise, the audience will think that Pan is a much worse khvotograhv than it really is. But maybe he is, and he gets good pictures once every hundred years in a random order.

That's not the case with me. Triplet-3, natural light:



Flash:





5X magnifier, flash:





Without attachments, a standard pseudo-macro in natural light:

 
That's not the case with me.

Blyaaya

Yes... well, if in the case of Sedition, most likely everything is in order, well, a person is joking, then everything is already serious here

After all, Caramor is a troll, and his constant rhyming has given himself away. And this topic is very likely created specifically to troll makrushnikov-home-made people who attach lenses and Soviet lenses to soap dishes, like me and Pan Stepova. Just in time, it appeared shortly after our battles in the topic "cameras", which Mr. Caramore allegedly insists on noticing. So I consider further discussion with Mr. Karamor unnecessary. But with Pan Stepov, why not [s]compete with centipedes [s] to discuss. In the first picture, the angle is bad and the GRIP on the head was enough. The second one is slightly worse than I would have done without the nozzle. At first I thought that the bee's terrible wiggling was caused by flying (that would be excusable), but no, it's fast asleep with a leaf clutched in its mandibles. I would hesitate to post this as an illustration of my photographic power. Otherwise, the audience will think that Pan is a much worse khvotograhv than it really is. But maybe he is, and he gets good pictures once every hundred years in a random order.

I wonder what exactly is my trolling? The fact that you were deceived, and now you are deceiving others ? You'll soon be carrying your soap dishes in your backpacks, even though they won't fit in there with macro attachments. How much does a five-fold magnifying glass cost ? Okay, I'll keep quiet. Everyone sees only other people's stupidity, but they will never guess about their own.

This post was edited by Karamor - 09.07.2016 23: 33

Well, this is already quite thick. By and large, I admit: to buy a five-fold magnifying glass, I had to sell a kidney

And Pan Stepova is also joking, laying out all sorts of parodies on macro here instead of true Shidevrov?

You shouldn't have sold the kidney. To be honest, you have turned out to be gibberish. All these additional attachments reduced the aperture and increased the frame density. When printing, dark "masterpieces" will be released, on which the development of details will have to be considered under a super-powerful lantern. I don't know what contrast you were bragging about ? You have it in the wrong places at all, and it doesn't serve the readability of details. I have seen such "macro" images in some magazines, it is difficult to understand what is there and where it is, you can only see all sorts of lumps.
The colors are dirty, the key is dark, and the artistry is zero. Brrrrrr..... I'd rather keep shooting with my device. Spare me your pseudo-curiosity.

This post was edited by Karamor - 10.07.2016 15: 51

Well, yes, for pictures of Caramor, the size of 5 cm is really the optimal size, for pictures of Esox it is no more than 15 centimeters, but for mine let it be 20.

Do you need these 15-20 centimeters wide photos ? That's the question. What to watch on them: your background or the misshapen forms of Esox ?

This post was edited by Karamor - 10.07.2016 18: 00

Yes... well, if in the case of Karamor, most likely everything is in order, well, a person is joking, then everything is already serious.

I'm a materialist. What my device takes off is neither good nor bad, it's just there.

This post was edited by Karamor - 10.07.2016 18: 12

No, I didn't publish anything like that, so you got a glitch. Then again trolling, not interesting.

You mentioned something about artistry, I remember. Create at least one image of an insect ! Or drown yourself. Your mess makes my eyes ripple.

By the way, the fact is, the photos of the Ezoxes are all some kind of treshevaty, well, it's clear that the triplet gives aberrations, it turns out mud and flat photos, but in general the whole composition is some kind of landfill like everything is piled up )) No accent)
Such photos as shchidevry are not listed

Pictures:

P7100304.jpg — (646.29к)