Would this be considered macro?

Photolistic · 10th of January 2007 (Wed)

http://www.somethingforever.com/gall...20943991/Large

LordV · 10th of January 2007 (Wed)

I would say not really but it's a lovely shot. For me a macro should show something you cannot see with the naked eye (when the subject is within arms reach).

Brian V.

Photolistic · 10th of January 2007 (Wed)

How about this?

http://www.somethingforever.com/gall...21149756/Large

Same thing? No macro?

The reason I ask is I want to submit these to a contest as well as nature pics. So if these count as macro then I could do more nature pics.

DrPablo · 10th of January 2007 (Wed)

Some people strictly define macro as when the subject is rendered at life size or greater on your film/sensor.

This is a problematic definition, though, because there are different format sizes and life size on APS-C is a different composition than life size on full frame -- because full frame has double the sensor area.

I myself don't care much about the strict definition of the word. In general I regard it as closeup photography, and whether your magnification is 1:2, 1:1, or 2:1, what's important is that you have a good composition.

So unless your contest requires 1:1 magnification or greater, I'd just presume that any closeup suffices for macro. I think your first shot works the best both in composition and sharpness.

Alan Neilson · 10th of January 2007 (Wed)

The first shot I would class as close up but not really macro the second shot you linked to you are getting into the relms of macro photography, although I bow to the more knowedgeable on this site such as Brian. Unless you are using the real specialest lenes like the canon 65mm mm I thnk it is that takes you beond life size the closest you will get with a macro lens is life size without other attachments. The second shot showing the staman of the flower is an exmaple of that.

Just my thoughts

SharpShooter89 · 10th of January 2007 (Wed)

I agree with DrPablo

The first shot isn't technically macro, but i would throw it in here probably, but that's just me. It's technically a 1:1 (lifesize) but everyone kinda defines it differently.

Cheers! =)

WMS · 10th of January 2007 (Wed)

Just to give everyone an idea of just how small the total field of view is for a 1:1 image in a 35mm camera a ladies engagement style ring of average size, Here in the US that would be a 6 1/2 would almost fill the height of the frame (in a landscape orientation, 24 by 35mm). For an APS-c size sensor this same ring would fill the width of the sensor.

Wayne

DrPablo · 11th of January 2007 (Thu)

That's right, Wayne. And that's why the definition of macro as 1:1 is pretty unhelpful. Point and shoot cameras with their 8x15mm sensors are great for closeup photography, because they focus within millimeters, have a big DOF, and are easy to handhold for long exposures; and yet a 1:1 macro would be worthless on a camera that small. On a larger sensor a 1:1 image would give you a completely different composition. These two B+W film images of mine were shot on 4x5 inch film at 1:1 magnification; if you imagine the size of an APS-C frame, which is less than 1/20 the total area, it would be a very small crop and different composition.

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/72879049.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/72086028.jpg

Photolistic · 11th of January 2007 (Thu)

Great pics! How did you get the penny to float? Its a penny right?

DrPablo · 11th of January 2007 (Thu)

Thanks, glad you like the pic! Here are the setups for the two shots I linked above. The penny is on top of a pen cap.

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/72082732.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/72879911.jpg

Lester Wareham · 12th of January 2007 (Fri)

I would say possibly not. Technically macro requires at least 1:1 magnification on the sensor. However the general use here seems to be about 1:2 and above. Most flowers can be captures with less than 1:4, which is the typical zoom magnification. Some do require more, sometimes much more.

I liked the general definition of above of showing detail that normally visible to the naked eye. Only problem with that is some have better eyesight than other - but it is a good principle.

Possibly more appropriate in the Nature and Animals section, but there is to be fare a lot of overlap between these two sections. The same can be said for some of the other sections.

::Lisa:: · 12th of January 2007 (Fri)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPablo

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/72879049.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/72086028.jpg

Wow those are great!

OP, I like the flower and the Lily. I took this of a lily a while back. Try something like it?

Lester Wareham · 12th of January 2007 (Fri)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ::Lisa::

Wow those are great!

OP, I like the flower and the Lily. I took this of a lily a while back. Try something like it?

Now that is macro - nice shot Lisa.

10th of January 2007 (Wed)	#1
Photolistic User is banned from forums Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Oregon City, Oregon Posts: 1,632 IMAGE EDITING OK	Would this be considered macro? http://www.somethingforever.com/gall...20943991/Large

10th of January 2007 (Wed)	#2
LordV Macro Photo-Lord of the Year 2006 Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Worthing UK Posts: 46,338 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: Would this be considered macro? I would say not really but it's a lovely shot. For me a macro should show something you cannot see with the naked eye (when the subject is within arms reach). Brian V. __________________ http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/ http://www.lordv.smugmug.com/ Macro Hints and tips http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=807056 Canon 20D, Canon 40D, Canon 5D mk2, Sigma 105mm EX macro, Tamron 90mm macro, Canon MPE-65,18-55 kit lens X2, canon 200mm F2.8 L, Tamron 28-70mm xrdi, Other assorted bits

10th of January 2007 (Wed)	#3
Photolistic User is banned from forums Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Oregon City, Oregon Posts: 1,632 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: Would this be considered macro? How about this? http://www.somethingforever.com/gall...21149756/Large Same thing? No macro? The reason I ask is I want to submit these to a contest as well as nature pics. So if these count as macro then I could do more nature pics.

10th of January 2007 (Wed)	#4
DrPablo Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: North Carolina Posts: 1,559	Re: Would this be considered macro? Some people strictly define macro as when the subject is rendered at life size or greater on your film/sensor. This is a problematic definition, though, because there are different format sizes and life size on APS-C is a different composition than life size on full frame -- because full frame has double the sensor area. I myself don't care much about the strict definition of the word. In general I regard it as closeup photography, and whether your magnification is 1:2, 1:1, or 2:1, what's important is that you have a good composition. So unless your contest requires 1:1 magnification or greater, I'd just presume that any closeup suffices for macro. I think your first shot works the best both in composition and sharpness. __________________ Cameras: Canon 7D, Agfa 8x10, Cambo 4x5, Noblex 150, Hasselblad 500 C/M, Canon lineup: 17-55 f/2.8 IS, Sigma 30 f/1.4, Sigma 50 f/1.4, Sigma 85 f/1.4, Canon 85 f/1.8, Canon 100 f/2.8L macro, Canon 135 f/2L, Canon 70-200 f/4L, Canon 100-400 L, Canon MP-E 65/2.8 1-5x macro, 580EX, MT-24 EX

10th of January 2007 (Wed)	#5
Alan Neilson Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Wetherby, West Yorkshire UK Posts: 336 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: Would this be considered macro? The first shot I would class as close up but not really macro the second shot you linked to you are getting into the relms of macro photography, although I bow to the more knowedgeable on this site such as Brian. Unless you are using the real specialest lenes like the canon 65mm mm I thnk it is that takes you beond life size the closest you will get with a macro lens is life size without other attachments. The second shot showing the staman of the flower is an exmaple of that. Just my thoughts __________________ "Oh no he's got his camera with him again!#!

10th of January 2007 (Wed)	#6
SharpShooter89 Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 104	Re: Would this be considered macro? I agree with DrPablo The first shot isn't technically macro, but i would throw it in here probably, but that's just me. It's technically a 1:1 (lifesize) but everyone kinda defines it differently. Cheers! =) __________________ -Doug Canon Digital Rebel XT 70-300 USM IS f4-5.6 24-85 USM f3.5-4.5 100 Macro f2.8 (Getting this one soon) Visit my website! Douglas Daly Photography

10th of January 2007 (Wed)	#7
WMS "Escargot on the Hoof" Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: California, the land of the politicaly corrupt and innept Posts: 2,848 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: Would this be considered macro? Just to give everyone an idea of just how small the total field of view is for a 1:1 image in a 35mm camera a ladies engagement style ring of average size, Here in the US that would be a 6 1/2 would almost fill the height of the frame (in a landscape orientation, 24 by 35mm). For an APS-c size sensor this same ring would fill the width of the sensor. Wayne

11th of January 2007 (Thu)	#8
DrPablo Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: North Carolina Posts: 1,559	Re: Would this be considered macro? That's right, Wayne. And that's why the definition of macro as 1:1 is pretty unhelpful. Point and shoot cameras with their 8x15mm sensors are great for closeup photography, because they focus within millimeters, have a big DOF, and are easy to handhold for long exposures; and yet a 1:1 macro would be worthless on a camera that small. On a larger sensor a 1:1 image would give you a completely different composition. These two B+W film images of mine were shot on 4x5 inch film at 1:1 magnification; if you imagine the size of an APS-C frame, which is less than 1/20 the total area, it would be a very small crop and different composition. http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/72879049.jpg http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/72086028.jpg __________________ Cameras: Canon 7D, Agfa 8x10, Cambo 4x5, Noblex 150, Hasselblad 500 C/M, Canon lineup: 17-55 f/2.8 IS, Sigma 30 f/1.4, Sigma 50 f/1.4, Sigma 85 f/1.4, Canon 85 f/1.8, Canon 100 f/2.8L macro, Canon 135 f/2L, Canon 70-200 f/4L, Canon 100-400 L, Canon MP-E 65/2.8 1-5x macro, 580EX, MT-24 EX

12th of January 2007 (Fri)	#11
Lester Wareham Moderator Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Dazed and Confused - Hampshire UK Posts: 13,363 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: Would this be considered macro? I would say possibly not. Technically macro requires at least 1:1 magnification on the sensor. However the general use here seems to be about 1:2 and above. Most flowers can be captures with less than 1:4, which is the typical zoom magnification. Some do require more, sometimes much more. I liked the general definition of above of showing detail that normally visible to the naked eye. Only problem with that is some have better eyesight than other - but it is a good principle. Possibly more appropriate in the Nature and Animals section, but there is to be fare a lot of overlap between these two sections. The same can be said for some of the other sections. __________________ My Photography Home Page RSS Feed MP-E, EF 100mm, EF 180mm : The Macro Dark Unholy Trinity : Bow down before their darkness and despair! Gear List FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters Macrophotography by LordV Last edited by Lester Wareham : 12th of January 2007 (Fri) at 10:51.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What is considered the Greatest......	grinchy	Accessories & Storage	11	30th of March 2007 (Fri) 23:14
Is this considered true?	Fizzbang	Canon EOS Digital Cameras	33	25th of February 2007 (Sun) 18:41
Would this blowout be considered okay?	justin-branam	Critique Corner	9	19th of October 2006 (Thu) 22:15
Is this considered a prime lens?	flaclick	Canon EF and EF-S Lenses	4	20th of July 2006 (Thu) 14:18
Is this considered a macro .. or just an extreme close up ?	Mrs Smarty Pants	Macro	2	6th of June 2006 (Tue) 09:33