We can all agree macro photography is the gayest, easiest, least

>>3109104
technically speaking, everything other than macro photography is the easiest and most no-skilled things.

It takes specialized equipment, lighting, software and techniques to do macro because of the wafer-thin depth of field requiring focus-stacking, very controlled subjects and perfect lighting.

Macro is easiest to make something cool with, because a macro snapshit shows something not visible to the naked eye, whereas a street photography snapshit doesn't add the least scrap of anything to the world.
I can see why a talentless streetshitter or wedding photographer would be jealous.

>>3109104
Nah, I'd give that award to "look ma, I'm a photographer now" selfie in the mirror using the auto mode on babby's first DSLR.

But yeah, macro photos of flowers/insects are the next close ones, especially when out of context.

>>3109104
those fucking pics of insects are the most boring thing in photography

>>3109104

Skill is involved, especially outside with limited / challenging lighting, annoying angles, and the wind. It can be tedious.

But yeah, nobody gives a shit about macro, except for the person taking the shots.

When does macrophotography end and normal lens min. focus distance closeup photography begin?

war photography > inner-city photography > landscape photography = architecture photography > portrait photography > macro photography > pictures of railways or roads

t. faggot

>>3109214
TRIGGERED

It's so gearfaggy not even gearfags do it because it would be way too obvious

It is done purely for the technical aspects. Which is not to say it's bad or anything, but unless you understand the peculiarities of the work that needs to go into a good macro pic, it won't seem very interesting

Up to a point I feel the same way about most fashion stuff and some portraits but that's rather subjective maybe

Macro is challenging as hell, which is why I suspect that genre is typically so limited and its potential is poorly explored. Anyone who says it's easy hasn't shot it.

>>3109109
I feel like you're over-estimating the technical barriers of macro photography and under-estimating the technical possibilities of every other genre.

You don't *have* to get special equipment, lights, or fuss with the subject. You CAN just put a macro lens on your Canon Rebel and shoot flowers or dead bugs on a kitchen table and call it macro photography (which wouldn't be wrong, by the way). All that other stuff you just mentioned is what's possible, or possibly necessary to achieve particular shots. You could go crazy in any other form of photography with lights, gels, camera movements, positioning and still battle with the elements or other unforeseen difficulties.

>>3109247
Any photography is challenging as hell if you, you know, challenge yourself. And macro photography is definitely not poorly explored as evidenced by all the well executed images you can find by just looking up "Macro Photography" on Google Images. Not that I would expect the resident shitposter, who thinks "composition is for stupid people", to know anything at all.

>>3109249

I was referring to the technical challenge, fuckwit. I didn't think I had to state that yes, there is a universal challenge of saying something new and worth saying with your work, but here we are.

And "macro photography" just brings up lots of bugs and plants, which while interesting (and precious in an era where people openly challenge climate change), aren't particularly unique subjects within the genre. What you see is an expression of people grappling with the technical challenge to the point that they can't produce any engaging or thoughtful photographs. That isn't to say that you can't have meaningful photos of bugs and shit. Joel Salvatore did some great work for natgeo documenting tons of endangered species. This has value not only as science, but as an ethical statement.

Natureguy is actually doing some interesting stuff with macro. I hope he sticks with it for a few years and cultivates it into something meaningful.

>>3109308
>technical challenge
It still exists in other forms of photography if you apply it. What you're referring to is macro work done by pros in a studio. Actually everything you just said about "uniqueness" applies to photography in general, I'm not sure why on earth you think it's unique to macro photography somehow.

>hurr durr photography are only good if it's totally new and special because I need to be special guys!

Tell us more about your insecurities, please.

>>3109313
>It still exists in other forms of photography if you apply it.

Sure, the technical challenge is everywhere. It's still more technically challenging to do macro than it is to, say, walk down an alley and take a photo of a dumpster with your kit lens.

>Actually everything you just said about "uniqueness" applies to photography in general, I'm not sure why on earth you think it's unique to macro photography somehow.

I don't? I literally said it universal. In reference to your next point, I also never said that photos are "only good if they're new". I just said that the potential of macro photography hasn't been fully explored due to the technical challenge, which serves as both distraction and obstacle for the photographer.

>Tell us more about your insecurities, please.

I'm a little paunchy and I can't seem to lose it, my teeth are fucked up, I think my hair is slightly thinning. Also my photos aren't as thematically cohesive as I'd like them to be, because I'm out of ideas and visually exhausted by my surroundings.

>>3109104

even if all these things are true, I still like macro photography best because it shows me things my eyes cannot. It's like when the Planet Earth Blu-rays came out and you got to see all that amazing shit in HD which you will literally never see in real life with just your stock eyeballs. Macro may not be always be as emotionally moving or unique like well done photography of other types, but it will always be my favorite because it basically upgrades my eyeballs in a way most other photography types do not