-- thomas marker (thomas@advokat-marker.dk), May 17, 2001

Answers

Is that better?

-- Mark Meyer (mark@photo-mark.com), May 20, 2001.

This appears to be a laparoscopic image of someone's lower G.I. tract. I'd have more tests run - it's a little fuzzy. But there just might be signs of pre-cancerous growth there on the right...

-- Dalton (foo@bar.com), May 20, 2001.

It's certainly different. Not too great from the perspective of a traditional macro shot, but very interesting from the perspective of a natural abstract. On which end of the spectrum does this photo fall?

Also, what are the technical details? Looks like you shot it wide open at least, perhaps even adding some diffusion.

-- Christian Deichert (torgophile@aol.com), May 21, 2001.

The Tech: FM2n with a 24mm on a 27,5 tube, with fill-flash. Closed down to f16 on tripod, but the tube on the wide-angel makes the flussiness. It is not manipulated.

-- (thomas@advokat-marker.dk), May 22, 2001.

I could be missing something, but if this had come from the developer with a set of my slides I'd have thrown it in the trash. Sorry to be harsh, but this doesn't do anything for me.

-- Rod Sorensen (sorenser@mfldclin.edu), May 25, 2001.

Might could use a tiny bit more DOF, but I like it. Good work.

Also real impressed with the quality of commentary around here as late. Real nice, folks.

-- Scott (bliorg@yahoo.com), May 27, 2001.

I agreed with Rod at first, but the longer it was on the screen the more it grew on me, I really like it. I'll have to take another look before I throw stuff out in future.

-- Jean Jones (jeanljones@aol.com), June 07, 2001.