LVMoose Moose gets blamed for everything.  More info | Mar 07, 2011 20:14 | #16 racketman wrote in post #11968665  I think a macro image should be 1:1 or greater on the sensor... That's what I've always heard, too. But doing a little research on the web, I've seen several sites define macro as life-size (or greater) on a 4X6 print. Moose
LOG IN TO REPLY |
gjl711 Wait.. you can't unkill your own kill.  57,733 posts Likes: 4065 Joined Aug 2006 Location: Deep in the heart of Texas More info | Mar 07, 2011 22:13 | #17 LV Moose wrote in post #11976659 That's what I've always heard, too. But doing a little research on the web, I've seen several sites define macro as life-size (or greater) on a 4X6 print. That doesn't make sense. So a printed 8x12 of a head shot would be considered a macro. Not sure why, but call me JJ.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
RDKirk Adorama says I'm "packed."  More info | Traditionally, "macro" has meant 1:1 subject size to image size (on sensor). True macro lenses are able to capture an object on the camera's sensor at the same size as the actual object (termed a 1:1 or 1.0X macro). Strictly speaking, a lens is categorized as a "macro lens" only if it can achieve this 1:1 magnification. However, "macro" is often used loosely to also include close-up photography, which applies to magnifications of about 1:10 or greater. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm photographic lens for close-ups: a lens used for close-up photography that produces a life-size or larger image on film, with a minimum of 1:1 object-to-image ratio TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography
LOG IN TO REPLY |
LVMoose Moose gets blamed for everything. More info | Mar 07, 2011 23:46 | #19 gjl711 wrote in post #11977327 That doesn't make sense... Hey, I didn't say I agreed with it, but it's out there: Moose
LOG IN TO REPLY |
RDKirk Adorama says I'm "packed." More info | In several places where it is mentioned (as life-sized on a 4X6 print), they say that that definition was probably perpetrated by lens manufacturers For sure, because I don't think any serious amateurs or professionals would base a definition on a 4x6 print. TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is NekoZ8 1679 guests, 98 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
.