Macro or Not Macro - That is the question

[Nigel G]

Someone recently pointed out on one of Wolfie's images which he put in the macro section, that it wasn't really macro - and then Wolfie kindly pointed out the same thing to me on one of mine .

Now before we go any further I'm not having a go at Wolfie, or anyone else I'm just curious. Macro is supposedly defined as 1:1 - which if I understand it correctly refers to 1mm of real life subject which will take up 1mm on your sensor. But assuming that to be correct is it still relevant when applied to full frame, APSC and 4/3 sensors or should you apply a crop factor to the ratio.

Alternatively is "macro" a term which determines what you get in the way of lens capability when you go shopping. I don't think so. A quick google of different manufactures lenses shows that Nikon and Sony do seem to stick to 1:1 (although Nikon calls it "micro") but Canon, Olympus, Sigma & Tamron all market "macro" lens which are 1:2 or more.

When you look at an image on this site or any other how can you tell if its 1:1or not. The ratio isn't in the exif and you've no idea how much the original image has been cropped. And then what of Orionmystery's fabulously detailed images with a lens that can go to 5:1. Is that macro or super macro?

Is "macro" still a meaningful term for anything? All viewpoints welcome.

[wolfie]

Nigel.

Macro, strickly speaking is 1-1, but over the years the boundry has become somewhat blurred.

Many of the low end lenses and the majority of compacts come complete with a "macro" setting which give a 1-2 ratio.

Nowadays due to many people in the digital age being brought up with the lower end lenses and compacts.
Close-ups now appear in the forums and also the digital photo mags and are termed as macro. I guess that is what's called progress.

I often take photos that are approx 2-1 such as this image, of a fly or this spider, But I now go with the "flow" and accept close-ups as macro.

I guess when you have 18mp cameras a crop is as good as a "true macro"

Harry

This is how wikipedia describes macro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography

[miketoll]

Agree with Harry, technically macro is 1:1 but the true meaning is hardly ever used these days unless someone is being pedantic. The 'rot' set in when manufacturers started putting a 'macro' setting on their popular zooms because it helped sell them. I have no idea at what magnification macro becomes photomicrography. I too am happy to go with the flow and call close ups macro although I realize it is wrong and there is no definition of the term 'close up.' At the end of the day what matters is how good or otherwise is the final image.

[gaz]

Wolfe!

Sorry to go off the topic a little but what sort of setup did you use to get the picture of the fly?? Think its a brilliant picture.

[wolfie]

Hi Gaz.
Sorry for the tardy reply, but I've been aways for a few days.

The fly was a very difficult photo to take as the fly was actually touching the front element of the lens.
For lighting I bounced two flashguns off of stratigically placed white cards.

Equipment used was my old Minolta D7 with a Minolta Rokkor 50mm f/1.7 lens reversed on the end of the 7Ds 200mm zoom.

Harry

[Gidders]

Originally Posted by wolfie

Hi Gaz.
....the fly was actually touching the front element of the lens. ...

So presumably it was no longer alive?

[wolfie]

Hi Clive, well it was alive, but stuck to one of those sticky fly catchers. Obviously it never recovered

Harry

[walwyn]

They've put macro on zoom lenses since the early 1980s to my knowledge. I had a Tameron 70-210 lens bought in about 1982 with that on it. With digital I think the simplest way to reconcile the issue is to ask whether the full frame, uncropped, area of the subject is 36x24 mm or less. Otherwise you can pretty much say that almost none of the images in the macro gallery are macro.

[Nigel G]

Originally Posted by walwyn

Otherwise you can pretty much say that almost none of the images in the macro gallery are macro.

Whilst I wouldn't disagree from a technically purist perspective I come back to my original issue - does it matter.

What is the relevance of this precise definition in today's digital photography. I'm not knocking it if there is one its just that I can't see it and am always willing to learn.

[walwyn]

Of course it does matter. A tight closeup portrait is not a macro though a number of people will call them such. It is that sort of thing that makes weakens the term macro.

Of course it doesn't matter. If its a closeup of a bug or flower then whether it is 1:1 or 1:4 isn't really relevant. But is this a macro?

http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...946&ppuser=472