I have to say I disagree with quite a lot of this. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great when people take the time and make the effort to provide detailed critique ("Constructive comments" is the way I like to think about it). Sometimes I do it myself, but as you know it can suck up lots of time, and may be ignored, rejected or whatever. But even if it is I think it is still useful for others reading the threads. However, in this particular case ...
The first shot is quite nice but dreadfully under-exposed.
I don't think so. The histogram is spread over the full range and more importantly the image looks fine (to me) brightness-wise. It doesn't look underexposed at all to me, let alone "dreadfully".
Things are developing as I type. I think the edit has spoilt the image. The tops of the legs look unnaturally light and the area between the eyes looks as if it has lost detail/texture/substance, and the fly's head no longer stands out so boldly against the background, which was the immediate impact the first version had for me, and I liked a lot. Clarity seems to have been lost in the ediited version.
The second might have worked if the focus had been spot on the eyes but it's not.
I think the focus is spot on the eyes. (I see that Bryn has demonstrated that now.) I think the problem is narrow dof, and the focus probably needed to be placed in front of, or at the front of, the eye in order to get the eye and the mouthparts in focus (given sufficient dof). Standing further off from the subject and cropping (more) might also help. So might using a smaller aperture.
The third would benefit from a 90 degree ccw turn
Why? That would make it look unnatural. Flies hang around in all orientations. I think turning it around would spoil it by causing cognitive dissonance because it looks (to me at least) like the blade it is on would have been much more vertical than horizontal.
and not having the wing clipped off.
Agreed. Not good.
The subject in the last one is facing away which is never ideal
Why not? I have loads of shots with subjects looking away, often looking (or at least appearing to be looking) "out into the distance", at the edge of a leaf for example. Facing away can work fine.
and one of the feet is clipped.
Which I agree is not very pleasing.
It's attention to minor details like these I've mentioned that make good Macro images stand out from those that are average or below that level. It's not an easy technique to get to grips with and takes a lot of practice.
I agree that attention to detail can contribute to making any image (not just macros/close-ups) stand out: attention to detail during capture (if you have time, which with macros you often don't, especially if the subject is moving), attention to detail during image culling and selection, and attention to detail during post processing. There again, there are some images for which the content trumps considerations of detail, composition, noise, clarity and the rest. So some really appealing/interesting/worthwhile images have terrible details in one way or another (or even in many ways, very occasionally); other things than carefully handled details can make an image stand out.
I'm no expert but I do take time to look over images (not just my Macro stuff) and try to identify factors that let them down. I then try to do something about it if I can instead of posting them up and hoping no-one will notice
How do you know what people "hope" when they post something? I suspect a lot of people just don't notice a lot of the sort of details that you and I care so much about, or not until they have it pointed out to them. And others seem simply to not care one way or the other about some of it, in their own or other people's pictures. People have a very varied approach to appreciating/enjoying images with many, sometimes quite radical, differences as to what matters to them and what doesn't.
(not suggesting that's what you do personally) but I've seen loads of stuff on here recently that smacks of that and many get the usual "Oh, that's great images." When they are clearly not. Once again this helps no-one.
I agree. It seems to be a perennial issue with forums. "How do you get good feedback (or any substantive feedback at all for that matter)?" With extreme difficulty it seems, and rarely. One doesn't want to discourage people by being too harsh, especially when trying to help beginners, but never saying anything other than "nice shot" or whatever certainly doesn't help people develop their understanding and skills. It's tricky. Perhaps it is time for another of those "How to provide critique/constructive comments threads". Or perhaps it has already been done to death. I recall a big thread about it a while ago, in the Talk Photography forum I expect. In fact, looking over there I see there is another one stickied
here. It is ongoing, but looks rather slow and intermittent (unlike the one I remember from a while ago), but is probably worth a read, and perhaps contributing to.
Not having a go at you individually Bryn, as you're clearly putting some effort in to learning but there are, as detailed, a few issues you may wish to consider.
I agree. I just disagree about what some of those issues are.
