Allow me to input my humble 2 cents of comments...
ortega said:
i think you are mistaken, i normally shoot F16 and smaller.
From the extremely narrow DOF from your above shots, I am being given the impression that the f-stop is less than f16. Usually f16 is almost enough to get a good portion of the spider in focus, eg first shot the fangs should be in focus but I think they are not. But still I could be mistaken of course. It helps if you could post the EXIF info of your shots so everyone will see and know what settings you used to get the shots.
you are entitled to your idea of what is "right"
but i shoot for fun and shooting the same shot all the time is no longer fun to me.
I try to bend the rules to get a shot that will excite me.
So what if i get a technically good shot that everyone else has taken,
it will not be remembered.
Sure, a technically good shot is probably what everyone aspires to, and it is not easy to achieve it in macro photography. For shooting insects, there are many differerent techniques and approaches, but I believe the main gist is to let the viewer see the insect as it is, i.e. the actual insect in full glorious details, and not just the eye or antennae bits in focus, while the rest of the body is not.
To me, I feel that macro photography is not just all about emphasizing on extreme shallow depth of field, getting as close to the subject as possible, etc. But what I feel is most important in macro photography (and any form of nature photography for that matter) is the
passion for the subject, where one aims to capture the natural behaviour of the subject, in as much
details as possible. There is a reason why 1:1 macro lenses are made so sharp. Good technical shot? Sure. But what matters most is subject content, something in the picture that makes it grab the viewer's attention. It may be a simple picture of a butterfly basking in the sun or a dramatic one of a praying mantis eating its prey. But what matters most is the details and the way the picture tells the viewer a story. Looking at your shots, sure, they are technically perfect but in the end I think they are just fairly ordinary shots of a spider on a wooden surface, just tilted for variation and all shot with extremely narrow DOF and tight cropping. Thats the general impression I get after viewing your pics.
I do believe that other than the front legs being OOF
my composition is okay, light is okay, exposure is okay. Don't you think?
or are you talking in general...?
Nothing wrong with your exposure at all.
macro shot have no choice but have lots of bokeh, at least in my setup.
although i do have f2.8 lenses i seldom shoot at 2.8, i prefer F16 for better colour.
Again, I think you are wrong here. Macro photography does not mean you must have lots of bokeh. Where did you pick up such an idea from? f16 would give you better colour? How on earth did you derive that? If we are speaking purely abt macro lenses, they are sharp both wide open and stopped down, and each lens would have the same colour characteristic regardless of f-stop. Just that the depth of field would be affected by change of f-stop.
will give you a stunning shot with "soul"
a shot that speaks to you, gives you the feeling of being there...
See my statement made previously about "details". If you look closely at the spider with bare naked eyes, would one's eyes achieve such a narrow depth of field in his/her vision? I doubt so. If you want your shots to have "soul", it has to be something uncommon and beautiful or dramatic enough to reach out to the viewer and grab his/her attention. But I do not think shots solely emphasizing extremely limited depth of fields and with such close proximity to the subject classify as shots with "soul".
Ultimately, I feel that the main aim of macro photography is about capturing tiny things that most people would overlook with their eyes and magnifying and bringing out the details of the subject in the best and most accurate way possible.
I hope you do not misinterpret my post as 'flaming' or such, it is just my own views on this matter. As mr_jason said, it is just about defining the context of macro photography to all. If one likes macro photography, one should pursue it because of one's passion and interest in the subject he or she wants to photograph. Be it ants, spiders, flowers, butterflies, etc. But God forbid, one should not not take macro shots just for the sake of achieving "soulful" shots.
On a sidenote, a good and recommended starter reading guide to macro photography for newbies would be books written by John Shaw, especially the book
Closeups in Nature.
Cheers and happy shooting.