Macro, Close-Up or Just Photography - Does it Matter?

[EdV]

The last several months I have immersed myself in Close-Up/Macro nature photography. So I would hardly offer myself up as an expert - not by any stretch of the imagination. But I have read a number of books. And I have spent considerable time hanging around websites like this one and several others and, most importantly, I have spent as much time as I could out in the field honing my skills.

I should preface what I am going to say by pointing out that my chosen subject for close-Up/Macro Photography is flowers and primarily wildflowers (others may refer to them as weeds). My goal is to capture the beauty in what others walk over, mow and attempt to kill with weed killers of all sorts.

And I guess I should just lay out the kit that I use. My macro bag contains a Rebel XT, Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens, A set of Kenko tubes, Sigma 70mm f/2.8 Macro lens, Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro lens, Sigma 1.4x TC, a Canon 430 EX Flash with a LumiQuest Softbox. I often use a flexible bracket for the flash along with a Manfrotto tripod and ballhead with a Novoflex Macro Focusing Rail. And once in a while I find myself using my 30D with a 70-200 f/2.8L IS and a 500D close-up lens with a 580 EX II Flash instead.

Here are some observations from my all too short journey into macro/close-up photography thus far.

When I began, I got all hopped up about shooting macro - shooting 1:1 images. Working in as close as I possibly could. But the more I did it, the more I found I was wondering why? And the more the answer kept coming back to me - because I could! And that alone didn't seem a good enough answer.

Slowly I came to realize that for my chosen subject, 1:1 wasn't always the answer. Matter of fact, I found that more often than not, it wasn't the answer - for me at least. That's when I started to let the subject decide whether I needed to shoot macro (1:1) or close-up or even wider. And that is when I started to enjoy my photography even more.

Now I am certain most of you already have learned this lesson. But I think it is an important one. For those who ask the question, I don't think we should get hung up in whether an image is macro or close-up or something else? In the final analysis, I just don't think it is that important.

So sometimes I will go 1:1 when I want to climb inside a flower and soak it all in as with this rose.
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s1/EdV_02/0803__429.jpg

And other times I will go 1:1 because my subject is so small and I want to try to fill the frame with it as was the case with the following two images.
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s1/EdV_02/0804__439.jpg

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s1/EdV_02/0806__428.jpg

And then there are situations where the flower is large enough that I don't have the need to go 1:1 to capture the image that I want as with the following images.
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s1/EdV_02/0805__423.jpg



http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s1/EdV_02/0805__426.jpg

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s1/EdV_02/0805__432.jpg

Then there are the times that I want to back out even farther but I would still consider this a close-up.
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s1/EdV_02/0805__422.jpg

I am not trying pontificate here based on my vast four month's experience. I am only trying to point out that for my chosen subject, I find macro and close-ups tools, so to speak, rather than a type of image. And I find the distinctions to be at the same time well-defined and yet arbitrary.

Any thoughts?

[racketman]

I like the last shot very much. I don't shoot flowers much but as far as bugs go I like to see shots of them in their enviroment, whole body shots and also ultra close ups.

[EdV]

I like the last shot very much. I don't shoot flowers much but as far as bugs go I like to see shots of them in their enviroment, whole body shots and also ultra close ups.

Thanks Toby. I understand what you are saying. It is the version of my flower philosophy. As I said, I am sure you guys have come to similar conclusions a long time ago. But I do keep seeing posts questioning whether what is often a very nice photo fits the macro definition. And my question is - Does it really matter?

[winkles]

I understand your point, and agree with you, after all its the picture that is important not the type of picture. A shot of an insect in its environment can be more interesting than an ultra detailed close-up.
Like all pictures experimentation is the key. A picture that is interesting is typically something that will be a little bit different from the 'cliche' shot.

However, to play devil's advocate, this forum is technically titled macro and most users would define true macro as a minimum of 1:1 reproduction. Should we then only post pictures that belong to this category in the interests of correct classification? You wouldn't post a picture of a bird to the motorsports forum.

Beyond the definition of 1:1 I think most users would accept that most content that shows a higher amount of detail than the standard picture would be welcome under the catogery 'macro' or 'close-up'. I also see macro as a tool to get a different perspective on the world, one we dont usually get standing 5 feet above insects and flowers.

I have never worried about the category for my pictures. I apply the term macro to all my shots that meet the criteria I describe above. In the same way I use the term landscape on some of my pictures that might not necessarly meet with the traditional requirements for landscape photography.

Ultimately, the category in which a picture comes under has no impact as to whether it is a good picture or not, and that is what really matters.

[Ook]

Liked your post, Ed.

I don't think the 1:1 definition for "macro" is very useful in todays photographic world - we talk of three sensor sizes for modern EOS cameras (APS-H, -C, FF), and various P&S models have still more sensor sizes. A "macro" shot on each of those cameras looks different on the screen. I think the 1:1 definition works best for mathematical calculations (such as reverse-calculating a subject length), and was arguably more useful when 35mm was a more of a "standard".

Personally, because of the above reasons, I don't really care about the magnification of an image. I think it's useful information to include on this forum because we all use the same sort of gear and it helps us get a sense of what we should use to achieve such a picture, but I wouldn't take it into account for a second when judging a photograph's aesthetic quality.

I think it was probably LordV who said it here, but I've taken to considering "macro" as meaning something like "of a greater level of detail that the human eye can naturally resolve". I think that one is better than using numbers.

[EdV]

Appreciate your comments, Winkles. and I agree with most of your observations.


However, to play devil's advocate, this forum is technically titled macro and most users would define true macro as a minimum of 1:1 reproduction. Should we then only post pictures that belong to this category in the interests of correct classification? You wouldn't post a picture of a bird to the motorsports forum.

I also see macro as a tool to get a different perspective on the world, one we dont usually get standing 5 feet above insects and flowers.



I didn't go back to check but I believe Macro is the only forum dedicated to a technique rather than a subject matter. Now that said, I do believe the Macro forum is really much more of a bug forum than anything else. But that's another issue.

But I agree that macro is more about technique than anything else.

[EdV]

Liked your post, Ed.

but I wouldn't take it into account for a second when judging a photograph's aesthetic quality.

I think it was probably LordV who said it here, but I've taken to considering "macro" as meaning something like "of a greater level of detail that the human eye can naturally resolve". I think that one is better than using numbers.

Thanks, John-Allan. I appreciate your comments. And I agree that we shouldn't judge a macro image by the degree of magnification. But then it may not be a macro image but only a close-up. Oh no!!!;)

Finally I guess that I would agree that Brian's definition gets you closer. But I still think there is a level of close up that may not necessarily provide the greater detail that the definition requires.

[Bill Pham]

i like your though on this subject. i did figure it out sometime last summer. i don't have to always shoot at 1:1 to get what i'm looking for. it's all boil down to what you think it's should looks like mentally and then try to get the shot like it. i do shoot lots of flower and most of them are just close up to me but that is what i like.


Bill

[LordV]

Lovely shots.
Fully agree with the magnification thing- you should shoot at whatever magnification you think is right for the subject.
Main problem comes on forums like this with arbitrary (and probably necessary) divisions into photographic genre.
I don't think you can break macro down into just pics taken at 1:1 or above for a variety of reasons but prefer a definition just on what can be seen in an average print/PC screen size that the picture should show more detail than can be seen by the human eye alone. I reckon taking this to a physical measurement then the in focus FOV width would not be larger than about 5cms which equates to around 0.5:1 on a 1.6 crop camera.
Brian V.

[dpastern]

Agree with above - macro photography is typically by definition 1:1 and above, but I don't holistically believe that that is applicable to all images. Sometimes, the subject demands shooting at less than 1:1 to show it's beauty, but you are still seeing more detail than the human eye naturally resolves. One of the things I like about POTN's macro section - no magnification ****s screaming at you if you dare post something at less than 1:1.

Love series, especially the last shot.

Dave

[r.morales]

1st - what books did you read and which ones were a waste of time [sucked ] ? Most of the books I have are a collection of pictures that may list lens , speed [ ISO ] and F stop . I want books that say do this and this happens and if you do this - this changes . Even here no one posts the shot before and after - just the good ones .
As far as macro goes - where else on this site are flowers posted .
This site isn't for grades , someone may say a picture doesn't belong here - so what ?

[DigitalSpecialist]

Your photos are beautifully done. I too shoot many macro photos, and just love being able to find natures gifts so lovely.

[dpastern]

1st - what books did you read and which ones were a waste of time [sucked ] ? Most of the books I have are a collection of pictures that may list lens , speed [ ISO ] and F stop . I want books that say do this and this happens and if you do this - this changes . Even here no one posts the shot before and after - just the good ones .
As far as macro goes - where else on this site are flowers posted .
This site isn't for grades , someone may say a picture doesn't belong here - so what ?

As I've stated earlier, try reading John Shaw's most excellent close ups book. The only macro book that I've read that I'd recommend in all honesty. The rest are very "airy fairy" imho, little on content, lots of nice pictures but that's it.

Dave

[r.morales]

Thanks , I just ordered - John Shaw's Closeups in Nature - from Amazon . There were 4 different books listed - if I like this one I'LL Probably order his other ones .

[dpastern]

He's one of the best writers on technical photography books that I've personally seen. One word of warning that I should have mentioned in my prior post - the book is quite old, so it does not cover anything on digital, it's all film based. It has solid chapters on everything though, so if you get it right in film, chances are you'll get it right with digital.

Dave