What IS the diff between a "Macro" and just a closeup?

I've seen hundreds of photographs with comments like.. "Nice Macro" - or, "I took this Macro of this flower" and they're all just 'close-up' shots..

What, exactly constitutes a Macro shot? - Do you have to use a "Macro" Lens ??

I took a couple of shots of a drop of water on a DVD - everyone told me how much they like my Macro ....... Huh? - I used my 75-300 ??

Nitpicking, or is there really a difference?

r

It's just the term used for 'close up'. AFAIK, there is not a specified magnification where it becomes macro - although I'm sure the true macro'ists here would argue that 'macro' starts at 1:1 or 1:2....

I think a macro image should be 1:1 or greater on the sensor ie a shot of a whole flower would only be a close up unless the flower was as small or smaller than the sensor size.
Personally i'm fine looking at close up images of snakes and fish etc but I guess most of them should really be in the wildlife forum. Mind most whole body shots of butterflies and dragonflies wouldn't make it either!

Right, most true macro shooters are going to say macro is at least 1:1 magnification or greater. Life size and seeing details our naked eye can't really make out. I think in terms macro and close up are fairly similar in that it's still a niche of photography, and a lot of shots that aren't necessarily 1:1 magnification I would still classify as being "macro" in a sense.

Is this macro?

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I vote closeup is greater than 1:1 and macro is 1:1 or less than.

Now, where does macro and micro divide?

gjl711 wrote in post #11968850
Now, where does macro and micro divide?

At the N point of course. N being the use of Nikon

Though seriously I think there is an official point, but that its some high magnification that DSLRs won't reach with conventional setups and I've a feeling you'd need a proper microscope setup to get to that magnification (ie not suitable for handheld/tripod use).

DdavisMotocross wrote in post #11968834
Is this macro?

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

how big is the flower ?

racketman wrote in post #11968912
how big is the flower ?

The purple part? about 1 1/2 inches tall/wide.

Is this Macro...the drop is around 2mm...I have no clue how to calculate magnification...my head is spinning wildly on a daily basis as I take all this in. Taken with a 60D/tubes/55-250 IS (at around 200 mm)/raynox 1.8 diopter filter. I know this is ridiculous but it has got me some cool shots.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

idsurfer wrote in post #11969576
Is this Macro...the drop is around 2mm...I have no clue how to calculate magnification...my head is spinning wildly on a daily basis as I take all this in. Taken with a 60D/tubes/55-250 IS (at around 200 mm)/raynox 1.8 diopter filter. I know this is ridiculous but it has got me some cool shots.

of course it's macro

I think a macro photograph should show detail not visible to the naked eye, this seems to equate to a lens magnification of at least 0.5:1 on a 1.6 crop DSLR or a FOV width at the point of focus of about 5cms max.
Having said that we do often post shots which are really just closeups rather than macro.
Brian v.

gjl711 wrote in post #11968850
I vote closeup is greater than 1:1 and macro is 1:1 or less than.

Now, where does macro and micro divide?

I'm not sure of this but I always thought: that macro refers to things that can be seen with the unaided human eye (macroscopic), and micro refers to things requiring magnification to see (microscopic). Also I might add that Canon puts the word "macro" on lenses like the 24-105L, a lens with a mediocre magnification.

gjl711 wrote in post #11968850
I vote closeup is greater than 1:1 and macro is 1:1 or less than.

Now, where does macro and micro divide?

Like all divisions this is also rather fuzzy but I tend to think it's around 5:1
eg with normal camera lens sytems around now you can shoot at 5:1 but for higher than that you tend to need rather extreme systems or indeed microscope lenses.
Brian V.

Not exactly. The weakest power objective you can buy, commonly available, for a microscope is a 2x. But it is still roughly 20 power when you combine it with the eyepieces, which are usually 10x. On the other hand, you can now buy adapters to fit the threads on the end of many lenses. A couple of common ones is for the 70-200/4 and the Canon 100/2.8. Then in the center of the adapter, it has a threaded hole for a microsope objective of whatever power you want to screw into it, usually 20x or lower.

You can forget hand holding these guys though. They are almost always used exclusively for studio work with stacking rails and fixed lighting. [And the question of using live or dead bugs is moot.]

Overread wrote in post #11968883
At the N point of course. N being the use of Nikon

Though seriously I think there is an official point, but that its some high magnification that DSLRs won't reach with conventional setups and I've a feeling you'd need a proper microscope setup to get to that magnification (ie not suitable for handheld/tripod use).