What is Digg?78 Comments
- guigo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+59whoa, imagine the weight that this drop is applying to poor bug :D "get that huge drop off me, i can't take off!" :D
- TheBenchWarmer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+43Cool photo. I wish digg had a "pictures" section.
- pytis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32Damn cohesive+adhesive properties of water! grr!
- forgiste, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27How are you not gay, bearowned?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21"How is this not gay?"
Because it has nothing to do with a ***** in another man's mouth or ass? - mariowario, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Go ahead kids. Remember, gotta catch em all.
- Eyeooga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13if thats photoshopped, its done pretty damn well, they even got the detail of the background refracting through the drop...
- audioscience, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Or just use ≠ ...
- codyman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Nice macro shot... I wish I had a nice digital camera...
- moley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I never understood that British term "ladybird". It is definitely a bug, not a bird. To each his own.
- mfratt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Sorry for the comment abuse, but does anyone know what kind of macro lens you need to take pictures like that?
- Ricapar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Photography", I think, would be a better category name.
"Pictures" seems a bit too broad, and will most likely end up getting filled with internet memes. - forgiste, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8you did it wrong.. it's =/= or != for you programmer types
- Groady, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7What?
- joeydoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@eyeooga
Why even bother giving an argued response to that? Just say "*****".
Any person who thinks that was photoshopped will probably have trouble reading what you wrote anyway. - joeydoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It's not a "lady" either. So.....
How about you use the term that the people who named it use.
Saying that, (after looking at wikipedia. :D) maybe we should all call them ladybeetles.
Their proper name is Coccinellidae, but who can remember/pronounce that.. - AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6" 'Pictures' seems a bit too broad, and will most likely end up getting filled with internet memes."
im in ur digg, meemin' ur picturz - ahknight, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6seconded.
- dheaddy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5good call
- Toothy1911, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Its a "Ladybird" ;P
- NikZ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Beautiful pic! Reminds me of this Ladybug shot:
http://img.inkfrog.com/pix/67princess/ThreeinOne.jpg - ahknight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's all in the lens. Imagine if my camera weren't just a P/S for these similar shots:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adam_knight/336941792/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adam_knight/336640120/
Why, I'd be on the front page... Alas, Digg doesn't have a proper photo category (it should, Flickr has an API), and my macro is nowhere near as good as that one. But I'm also a "semi-pro" and am quite happy right here, so I don't need it. - Nydas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I really wish i was that talented with a camera.
- wulfflower, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The stuff you see in the water is actually the blurred grass at the back of the picture, it's just made somewhat clear by the water.
- beegary, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ladybug = LADYBIRD
we named it first ne ne ne ne ne - Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3you don't need digital to take nice shots like this. and old manual SLR a 50mm lens and some extension tubes would let you get similar results... after some practice
- Cimlite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't agree with that. Yes, hardware is a big part of photography. An equally big part of it is timing though.
Something this particular shot shows very well. - tmv32, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Wow sweet pic!
- Joshuarr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ ahknight:
You'd need a spray bottle too, if you really wanted to get on the front page. These suckers eat up the whole water droplet reflection thing. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3why couldn't the full word "picture" be in the title?
- lansuggs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Those ladybugs spend way too much time at the gym.
- HsoKinees, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2hmm.. emotear? i didn't know wildlife had emotions :P
- Jist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There were tons of amazing pictures on that site... Go through them. They're great.
- optikalblitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2macro FTW!
it's inspiring to see how huge the world looks - ldavid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I just wish I had a camera that could take micro shots like that...
- Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2agreed
- ahknight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No, you mean there's more than one social site out there? Holy link-sharing Batman!
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The other pictures there are nice too. I just wish they were of higher resolution.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2here is another ladybug shot - one with a house in the droplet: http://www.flickr.com/photos/imova/34811887/in/set-770730/
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Those are Asian beetles, the poor slob relatives of the ladybug. They don't eat aphids and they cluster at your window to die.
- Quaoar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1An exceptional opportunity! Nice photo. Don't let the detractors get you down: most have never had the ambition to claim a photo like this! Nice work! I hope to see more of your work soon!
Q - D3koy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1not as col as the PopSci "megapixels" but still very cool
- MaxwellTD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2this website is filled with awesome photos!
- echinatl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The other pictures on this website are amazing too!
- ahknight, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2To any question starting with "Why couldn't..." the answer is, invariably, one of the following:
People are stupid.
People are lazy.
People are cheap. - rhettnyedotorg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this was taken with my old POS sony that died 2 months out of warranty:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=417489 - Haplo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I made this one today: http://toxicice.com/images/lizard-in-grass.jpg
My camera (Sony) has also no real macro, but 6 MP and cropping does work out ok now and then. I hope to buy a real camera next year :-) - film42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I dare someone to submit this to JPG Magazine!
- Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1it could be but the photographer is likely using extension tube or an auto bellows to achieve greater than 1:1 magnification
- Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"does anyone know what kind of macro lens you need to take pictures like that?"
probably any lens that magnifies to 1:1, preferably with a focal length of 100mm or more.
Also the photographer probably used something like an auto-bellows/extension tubes to archive greater magnification than 1:1. -
Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
