OK, this is as close as I could go with the lens I was using. I've since managed to get a macro and will be playing with that once time permits. These are just the computer mice from my PC and laptop lined up against each other. They're resting on the work I was meant to be doing. Clearly there are times when I prefer to take photos than to read about kinetics!!
"I've just gotten my hands on a macro and to be honest am afraid to use it just seriously just yet."
There's really nothing to be concerned about. As you said, use a tripod (and not only for close-ups), compose, focus, shoot. It might be useful to use either the self-timer or a remote shutter release to minimize camera movement. If your camera has mirror lock-up, use that too.
Don't be afraid to play with the depth of field. Recently I did some experiments using a 105mm macro lens (at 1:1 magnification) with an additional +2 dioptre lens. At f/2.8, the DOF was maybe a fraction of a millimeter, but at f/32 it was *much* greater. Not sure what macro lens you have in terms of focal length, but the telelenses go to pretty small apertures (the one I use theoretically goes down to f/45, but is restricted by my camera to f/32). So if you use a tripod and set an appropriate aperture, getting things in focus won't be a problem.
There's a good article on macro at www.mplonsky.com The photos there are of insects but there's valuable information that applies to macro in general.
"I'm from a generation where everyone wants to have a digital camera"
That's actually a good thing, because one can get excellent deals on second-hand analogue gear :-)
"It's just great to step into the darkroom and forget everything in the world outside and concentrate on the film being processed! Does that make sense??"
It makes a lot of sense. I feel the same.
Re Film development: do you know about the digitaltruth website? (www.digitaltruth.com) There's lots of resources there including a *huge* development chart. If you don't know this site already, make sure you check it out.
wow what an informed comment you made for me. I really appreciate it. I'm not so good with the language of photography so was trying my best to give an accurate reason for the image I produced.
Focussing: For this particalar shot I was indeed focussing on the mouse to the rear. Other attempts were on the mouse to the foreground but I really was having no success with those shots at all!
As for my "small movements...." comment: The lesson I learned here is to use a tripod next time I try some close in work. Also, I've just gotten my hands on a macro and to be honest am afraid to use it just seriously just yet. Need more confidence I suppose!!
Now to your comment on the Reversal of a lens. YES!!! AND IT'S BRILLIANT!!! I've done it before with my old Praktica (spelling? sorry) camera which had a 50 mm prime lens on it. I wanted to photo flowers etc. close in and so did just that. Now, my photos wouldn't have been the best but I did get a nice one of a hovering damsel fly(species: Ishnuera elegans ) which I was quite pleased with!
Finally: FILM! I love it! B&W/Colour/Slide: the lot!! I'm from a generation where everyone wants to have a digital camera or so it seems! I know I'm the only one amongst my friends who doesn't have one. And to be honest: I don't want one just yet. I really, really love the fear factor associated with film -especially B&W. There's also for me something really pleasant and about shooting a roll of film and then going into the darkroom, preparing the negatives and printing off a few shots. It's a patience game,it's a dying art (or so I'm told) and it's something to look forward to at the end of the working week. It's just great to step into the darkroom and forget everything in the world outside and concentrate on the film being processed! Does that make sense??
Finally, Finally: I processed this film in AGFA rodinal for the simple reason that it's the only one on sale in the local camera shop and there is loads of information about using it effectively in magazines, the internet etc.
Anyway, I hope I have replied effectively for you and again am really grateful for your informed comments.
"this is as close as I could go with the lens I was using"
Well, I'm not sure. I think it depends on what you were trying to get in focus. If it was the white mouse, you've gone too close, and the out-of-focusness is due to exceeding the minimal focusing distance rather than from unsteady handholding. If your target was the black mouse, then you got it almost right. Either way, the words "promise for" and "aqueous media" just to the right of the rear mouse seem to be most in focus.
"small movements are exaggerated when so close in with non-macro lenses"
I think they're exaggerated when close in with macro lenses as well. The magnification should play the key role here. The greater the magnification, the more impact will any shift in camera position have on focus.
By the way, have you tried setting the focal length on your zoom lens to 50mm, focusing to infinity and holding the lens reversed to the camera body? It should give you a macro lens.
"I was experimenting on how to force film to become grainy through processing"
It's great to see people still using film, and using it creatively. What did you develop it in?
thanks for the comment on the photo. Sometimes negative feedback is the best way to improve!! Yeah it's all those things you noted for not liking the photo! It was handheld so I was trying desperately to stay in focus, but small movements are exaggerated when so close in with non-macro lenses. As for the noise, that was deliberate as I was experimenting on how to force film to become grainy through processing! Either way, I like it and sometimes that's the most important thing.
Again, thanks for at least looking at the photo!!!
0 
{K:24381} 4/19/2004
"this is as close as I could go with the lens I was using"