Rachel Foster
New member
And my major question with both of these is whether their appeal is limited only to me.  Even though there is something about both I like, they obviously need work.  I'm wondering if it's worth pursuing, however.
This first one I suspect is too macro. I like it, but I'm uncertain about it. ISO 400, 100 mm macro, 1/400, f/5.6.
		
		
	
	
		 
	
This looks crisper in Bridge (not downsized and RAW). You can count the hairs on the little thing's head.
This second one I was intrigued by the lighting. Again, I'm wondering if the appeal is idiosyncratic to me only. ISO 400, 100 mm macro, 1/200, f/5.6.
		 
	
								This first one I suspect is too macro. I like it, but I'm uncertain about it. ISO 400, 100 mm macro, 1/400, f/5.6.
 
	This looks crisper in Bridge (not downsized and RAW). You can count the hairs on the little thing's head.
This second one I was intrigued by the lighting. Again, I'm wondering if the appeal is idiosyncratic to me only. ISO 400, 100 mm macro, 1/200, f/5.6.
 
	