3 ms·
To my untrained eye I don't understand why #1 is #1, #2 has more interesting details and demonstrates much more skills. Perhaps I don't understand the evaluatio
by belval 3y ago
To my untrained eye I don't understand why #1 is #1, #2 has more interesting details and demonstrates much more skills. Perhaps I don't understand the evaluation parameters though, #1 is probably a bigger technical achievement.
- c2occnw 3y agoSince it's a photomicrography competition, 20X magnification vs 2.5X may play a factor in the judging?
- deepsun 3y agoNot sure it demonstrates much more skills (lighting a match vs. extracting an optical nerve and differentiating it to proteins, glials and vasculature).
- belval 3y agoI meant photography skills, clearly most people can strike a match.
- omoikane 3y agoIt's probably not as simple as striking a match. Note that the list of techniques used for the matchstick includes "image stacking", which I thought involves multiple exposures, but a burning match is not quite a static subject that would remain constant across multiple shots. I am curious what setup they have done to pull it off. Related, this photographer has videos of macro shots of burning match elsewhere: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AOql9Ie9zSE https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AOql9Ie9zSE https://www.instagram.com/reel/CxBKzO0IjXd/ https://www.instagram.com/reel/CxBKzO0IjXd/