What exactly is macro?

And is cropping cheating? Here are two versions of the same photo, one original and one cropped. The actual size of the spider is approximately 1/2 inch.
I’m back in the Canon family, wife bought me an EOS T7i. Picture was taken with 18-55 kit lens at 55, with a Raynox macro attachment on front.

Technically it would mean shooting at 1:1 magnification, but that can also be applied to "effective" final image
Cropping can't be avoided in many situations, especially in nature photography.

Leave the technicalities aside, enjoy what you shoot (and see)

Thanks.

.

Terry McDaniel wrote in post #18871684
What exactly is macro?
The actual size of the spider is approximately 1/2 inch.

True macro means that the object in the scene is being recorded at life size or larger.

In other words, if this spider is 1/2 inch, then the spider itself would occupy 1/2 inch of space on your sensor.
.

Terry McDaniel wrote in post #18871684
And is cropping cheating?

It isn't about the final output, it is about the media that the image is originally recorded on. . Therefore, cropping doesn't even enter into the equation because that is something that is done after the image is recorded.

.
The term "macro" is misused all the time. . People would be better served to use the term "close up" photography when they are not doing true macro work. . I do a lot of close up work with my 100-400mm zoom, due to its close minimum focusing distance ....... but I cannot do macro work with it because it does not even come close to recording images at life size.

.

That makes sense. So the next question, should I even be posting close ups in the macro forum? Maybe we need a new forum.

.

Terry McDaniel wrote in post #18871913
That makes sense. So the next question, should I even be posting close ups in the macro forum? Maybe we need a new forum.

.
The Macro sub-forum is the proper place for posting close up work. . Here on the forum, when "macro" is used, it is seldom referring to the actual definition of macro photography.

A new forum? . Are you serious?

Are you proposing that there be one sub-forum for true macro work and another sub-forum for close up work? . The goal here on POTN has normally been to try to consolidate things, so that there aren't too many sub-forums. . What you suggest would be working in opposition to the way the forum is trying to organize things.


.

No, I thought the smiley suggested I was kidding. Should have used a wink.

Thanks for your input. I appreciate you taking the time to explain things.

Terry McDaniel wrote in post #18871950
No, I thought the smiley suggested I was kidding. Should have used a wink.

.
I'm sorry ... I am pretty much immune to sarcasm or kidding, just don't see it even when it's right there in front of me. . I am too busy being very serious and taking things extremely literally to see things any other way.

.

There are quite a few clearly non macro images posted but I guess if macro is your main thing its a bit tedious to be posting close up in Wildlife as well.

Something like this definitely isn't macro but this sub forum is the home of bugs

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/M8ic​v7

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18871953
.
I'm sorry ... I am pretty much immune to sarcasm or kidding, just don't see it even when it's right there in front of me. . I am too busy being very serious and taking things extremely literally to see things any other way.

.

This statement deserved a big fat LOL with a winky face

Back in the days we were doing the photo book competitions I used an adhoc definition of 1/3 life size to allow close up photos including all of a dragonfly for example, but we are fairly relaxed.

As noted the technical definition relates to linear magnification on the capture medium from 1x to typically 10x above which it it is photo micrography.

I guess in the days of a 10x8 view camera you could get to life size doing a head only portrait of a person.