- Messages
- 8,826
- Name
- Bryn
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Cheers Bill... to be honest I would say this is the definition in Digital Photography.
and the site receives a small commission
what is a macro in photographic terms
- Thread starter BillN_33
- Start date
Cheers Bill... to be honest I would say this is the definition in Digital Photography.
D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
It is but unfortunately a lot of lens manufactuers use woolly terminology to beguile people into believing they are getting an outstanding product. Now, I'm a great advocate of Fuji lenses and if you look at the below add. It would have you believe that this is a macro lens. There is even an entomological mage of an insect. As portrait lenses go its very good but I and others have said Fuji have got a cheek calling it a macro lens, it's not a macro lens by any sense of the definition.
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xf60mmf24_r_macro/
Thats why it's important to discern, discuss, learn and inform. Therein is the point of this forum and as a Rapscallion you should be aware of this
Hi Nick,
The problem of defining (within this forum) what macro means, is that some people (especially beginners) will assume this is a global definition (which it clearly isn't as evidenced by the 'woolly' definitions used by lens manufacturers). Also, I am not sure how helpful it is to define macro as only that which is captured at 1:1 or greater, with nothing less than that allowed to be called macro. That would mean the vast majority of shots that i took with my sigma 105 macro would not fall into that category, despite being apparently 'macro', as i believe it only achieved that at its closest focusing distance.
Cheers!
- Messages
- 8,826
- Name
- Bryn
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What is wrong with the term close-up? In your scenario your "Macro lens" shots are mostly close-up not macro.
Why do people get so het up about it being close-up and not "Macro"
RedRobin
Dances With Dogs
- Messages
- 9,314
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Surely no-one needs to start getting technical and using numeric ratios to define such terms as Micro, Macro, and Close-up - The resulting images speak for themselves.
My much beloved prime Canon 300mm f4L IS lens has "MACRO 1.5m / 4.9ft" printed on its body and relative to other telephoto lenses it offers me an extremely valuable ability to get close to my subjects (mostly dragonflies) without intrusion.
My much beloved prime Canon 300mm f4L IS lens has "MACRO 1.5m / 4.9ft" printed on its body and relative to other telephoto lenses it offers me an extremely valuable ability to get close to my subjects (mostly dragonflies) without intrusion.
D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
i have no idea bryn! Better ask those above who are getting quite prescriptive about what is and isn't macro!
- Messages
- 7,314
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Seems like a sensible definition to me, as previously said 1:1 on some film cameras would class a house brick as macro!
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,977
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
It is but unfortunately a lot of lens manufactuers use woolly terminology to beguile people into believing they are getting an outstanding product. Now, I'm a great advocate of Fuji lenses and if you look at the below add. It would have you believe that this is a macro lens. There is even an entomological mage of an insect. As portrait lenses go its very good but I and others have said Fuji have got a cheek calling it a macro lens, it's not a macro lens by any sense of the definition.
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xf60mmf24_r_macro/
Thats why it's important to discern, discuss, learn and inform. Therein is the point of this forum and as a Rapscallion you should be aware of this
Golly.
Had I been in the market for a Fuji macro (as in 1:1 or greater) I might have just assumed that this lens is... It looks like a macro in that it's a prime and it's easy to believe that a 60mm f2.4 is indeed a macro but the max magnification is x0.5.
Just shows ya, read the small print.
- Messages
- 9,227
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes true macro is 1:1 and you do need to be careful to make sure that the lens you're looking at at will do 1:1 in case you come across a small subject like a skipper butterfly
What I do is probably classed as close up but I'm not bothered to be honest I just go out there and shoot stuff
What I do is probably classed as close up but I'm not bothered to be honest I just go out there and shoot stuff
RedRobin
Dances With Dogs
- Messages
- 9,314
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What I do is probably classed as close up but I'm not bothered to be honest I just go out there and shoot stuff
....Exactly! As long as you get the shots you are after to the quality you are happy with, that's all that matters. The rest is academic (and only fodder for discussions on internet forums).
- Messages
- 2,247
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think you are confusing image size with frame size.
That same house brick would still appear 1:1 on a 35mm frame, it's just that you wouldn't see as much of it.
The so-called 1:1 is the reproduction ratio, which has nothing to do with the format size.
D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
Alan is assuming equivalent print size which seems reasonable.
edit - though that is an assumption of mine....
- Messages
- 2,247
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The so-called macro 1:1 is the reproduction ratio, it has nothing to do with print size, equivalent or not.
It means that an object 10mm long produces a 10mm long image on the sensor/film.
Of course at the print stage you can enlarge it to whatever size you want, but we are talking about photography, capturing the actual image, not printing
It means that an object 10mm long produces a 10mm long image on the sensor/film.
Of course at the print stage you can enlarge it to whatever size you want, but we are talking about photography, capturing the actual image, not printing
D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
Yep, understand all the above - but calling a 1:1 shot of a house brick on a 10x8 large format camera a 'macro shot' is a bit silly imho....
- Messages
- 6,408
- Edit My Images
- No
Why?
It's perfectly feasible to to take a 1:1 macro image of a house brick with a 10 x 8 camera - you could take a close up of the frog ( the recess in the centre) with some writing on. It would still be a macro shot by definition.
The camera format or sensor size is completely irrelevant. It could be taken on a CSC, SLR, DSLR, Med Format, 5 x 4 or 10 x 8. In addition it has nothing to do with printing or post production.
It's perfectly feasible to to take a 1:1 macro image of a house brick with a 10 x 8 camera - you could take a close up of the frog ( the recess in the centre) with some writing on. It would still be a macro shot by definition.
The camera format or sensor size is completely irrelevant. It could be taken on a CSC, SLR, DSLR, Med Format, 5 x 4 or 10 x 8. In addition it has nothing to do with printing or post production.
- Messages
- 7,314
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
feasible yes, but just shows what a stupid term macro is to define small stuff.
- Messages
- 9,227
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes but Bill, the OP isn't using a large format camera, he's probably using a Nikon or Canon etc crop camera or maybe full frame
He just needs to know if he can take frame filling shots of insects with the lens he's looking at
I,m pretty sure he's not looking to photograph house bricks
He just needs to know if he can take frame filling shots of insects with the lens he's looking at
I,m pretty sure he's not looking to photograph house bricks
- Messages
- 6,408
- Edit My Images
- No
Here's another definition you won't like Blanc Canvas, but has rather more common sense to it that blindly adhering to a reproduction ratio
Macro is photography of small objects to reveal detail not visible to the naked eye.
It's not a question of 'like or dislike'. My observations and comments are objective not subjective. Stating I "won't like something" is just being immature or churlish.
I have no problem with your definition. However, it's not a very good definition and it isn't true. For example; a forensic investigator would photograph a blooded fingerprint on a car door using a 1:1 macro lens. The car is not a small object - it's a large one. Even naked eyesight has a level that is defined. Many people could see a brick with the naked eye but others may have to put on a pair of glasses to view the detail, or lettering on it so it also depends on how good your eyesight is which is yet another factor. Like it or not, even a common house brick could have detail on it not visible to the naked eye. Probably the only people who ever photograph these close up are Forensic Investigators looking for blood and fibres on it - it's a pretty dull subject granted !
Things have to be defined in life so there is a standard, that could be a ratio, a measurement, a value, quantity or grade even a focal length !
We don't even have to use technical language on here, we can use baby language if you like - close up lens, long lens etc. Really makes no difference to me, but given this is a photographic forum which does a have a few technical aspects to it, it just might be relevant.
- Messages
- 2,247
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I agree it's rather silly, but it meets the 1:1 reproduction ratio that some people seem to regard as a definition of "Macro."
I think it was an attempt to bring some humour into the discussion(?) , which appears to be wasted on some people.
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
Good God this subject always generates some pretty bizarre opinions!
The scientific and medical community etc are quite clear on the definitions of what constitutes macro photography and photomicroscopy. We tend to be quite specific about things! To suggest that 'there is certainly nothing universally agreed' as to what constitutes macro photography is frankly ridiculous. When I'm looking at images of histological slides, for example, they weren't just taken in some sort out slapdash fashion - they are professional quality images produce to recognised standards. Unlike camera lens manufacturers we don't tend to use words like macro and micro on a whim, we tend to use them to mean specific things!
Just because camera manufactures stick 'macro' on a lens barrel instead of 'close-focusing' doesn't change the definition. Just because lots of people into macro photography like to shoot pictures of insects, doesn't mean the definition changes to encompass any picture of a friggin' ant! Just because a picture of something taken on a FF dSLR fills the frame more than something taken on medium format doesn't make one more macro than the other!
This way of thinking seems to lead to 'definitions' like this:
This is ridiculous to the point of being a waste of time to correct. I might want a series of images taken of a wound healing. They could be taken at 1:1 and therefore be macro images. THINK about what you are saying. It's 1:1! It's an image of what is visible to your naked eye! Engage your brain!
NO NO NO NO NO! What if that image is being taken for the purpose of forensic photography in a study on the tensile strength of that brick and someone wants an image generated to those specs? Think a bit beyond photography being simply about making pretty pictures. Just because the macro images you're used to seeing are of butterflies that doesn't mean a photo of a house brick is 'silly' FFS.
The scientific and medical community etc are quite clear on the definitions of what constitutes macro photography and photomicroscopy. We tend to be quite specific about things! To suggest that 'there is certainly nothing universally agreed' as to what constitutes macro photography is frankly ridiculous. When I'm looking at images of histological slides, for example, they weren't just taken in some sort out slapdash fashion - they are professional quality images produce to recognised standards. Unlike camera lens manufacturers we don't tend to use words like macro and micro on a whim, we tend to use them to mean specific things!
Just because camera manufactures stick 'macro' on a lens barrel instead of 'close-focusing' doesn't change the definition. Just because lots of people into macro photography like to shoot pictures of insects, doesn't mean the definition changes to encompass any picture of a friggin' ant! Just because a picture of something taken on a FF dSLR fills the frame more than something taken on medium format doesn't make one more macro than the other!
This way of thinking seems to lead to 'definitions' like this:
Here's another definition you won't like Blanc Canvas, but has rather more common sense to it that blindly adhering to a reproduction ratio
Macro is photography of small objects to reveal detail not visible to the naked eye.
This is ridiculous to the point of being a waste of time to correct. I might want a series of images taken of a wound healing. They could be taken at 1:1 and therefore be macro images. THINK about what you are saying. It's 1:1! It's an image of what is visible to your naked eye! Engage your brain!
NO NO NO NO NO! What if that image is being taken for the purpose of forensic photography in a study on the tensile strength of that brick and someone wants an image generated to those specs? Think a bit beyond photography being simply about making pretty pictures. Just because the macro images you're used to seeing are of butterflies that doesn't mean a photo of a house brick is 'silly' FFS.
- Messages
- 2,247
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's all very well, but you don't tell us what those "recognised standards" are.
If it is so concisely defined can you please point me to the ISO definition of Macro photography?
The point is that "Macro" means different things to different people, although these days a 1:1 or greater reproduction ratio is widely accepted as the starting point of macro working, but as proven by this discussion, just because something is widely accepted does not constitute a definition, especially a correct one.
As someone who has had an interest in macro photography, years ago, in the days of film, I purchased a Focal press book titled "Macro Methods" by Arnim and Ingeborg Tolke.
This was first published in 1965 an in the text it says (about macro) "... (there is) the fascination of photographing minute objects "big", with quite astonishing results. Photographs of this kind are commonly divided into two categories - close-up and macrophotography - and it would be better if such indefinite terminology could be replaced by a clear-cut definition based on the technique employed."
So it seems the definition of "macro" has been undefined for quite some time.
The only way to provide a "forensic" reference in a photograph is to include a scale of some kind, (although I'm not sure how you measure tensile strength with a photograph.)
Otherwise you are reliant on the image always being reproduced to the same scale, which is never the case with a print, which can obviously be made any size, without reference to the original.
Just because it was macro (1:1) on the original imaging device (be it film or digital) does not mean it will be 1:1 in the final print.
In fact it is very unlikely, since I don't know anyone who makes 1:1 prints at image sensor size, even a large format one.
Without providing us a reference to a defined standard you are expressing an opinion just as "silly" as some of the other posts.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
You may think that there's a clear and universally agreed definition of macro, and there may be in certain specialised fields, but the evidence of this thread suggests that as far as the general photographic population is concerned, there is not.
The problem with the 1:1 definition is it doesn't actually apply to many of the kinds of pictures most photographers describe as macro, and furthermore, different formats turn that definition on its head. If you want to assert something like that, the you could start by emailing the 38,000 members of the Macro Group group on Flickr. Just check the images on the front page here, and most of them are nowhere near 1:1 https://www.flickr.com/groups/macro/
Maybe you should think more about what you're saying in the context of the debate, and certainly the manner in which you say it.
You're just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse, Brain G.
The example about a brick is just a make-believe story of how a 'silly' picture of a brick can be perfectly valid and not 'silly' in any way. It's obvious I meant that the example meant a fictitious study on 'tensile strength' (just an example so people can imagine why someone might want a picture of a brick, and how not all macro is for aesthetic purpose) and the picture may be taken as illustration - it was an simple point of highlighting how such a picture of a brick can be perfectly valid. You're just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative by trying to raise completely off-topic nonsense about scale and print size.
Bit of a bigger point here...
One of the main reasons most professionals steer well clear of forums like this is due to the ridiculously truculent attitude of most people on the forum. It becomes absolutely wearisome trying to educate or inform people. The definition and boundaries of macro and photomicrography are well known to anyone with even the most basic level of professional education in these fields. Anyone with professional experience of scientific or medical imaging etc knows exactly what the hell I'm on about and knows exactly what is/isn't macro photography and how to generate professional level scientific imagery. If you want to believe that macro is some vague concept lacking definition then that's your opinion, but don't try to suggest that the professional community doesn't have a very well defined idea of what it is.
I'm not going to waste my time responding to a reference to an old photography book and I'm not going to waste my time providing information about what constitutes macro photography when this information is freely available on the web should someone expend the energy required to look for it.
The example about a brick is just a make-believe story of how a 'silly' picture of a brick can be perfectly valid and not 'silly' in any way. It's obvious I meant that the example meant a fictitious study on 'tensile strength' (just an example so people can imagine why someone might want a picture of a brick, and how not all macro is for aesthetic purpose) and the picture may be taken as illustration - it was an simple point of highlighting how such a picture of a brick can be perfectly valid. You're just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative by trying to raise completely off-topic nonsense about scale and print size.
Bit of a bigger point here...
One of the main reasons most professionals steer well clear of forums like this is due to the ridiculously truculent attitude of most people on the forum. It becomes absolutely wearisome trying to educate or inform people. The definition and boundaries of macro and photomicrography are well known to anyone with even the most basic level of professional education in these fields. Anyone with professional experience of scientific or medical imaging etc knows exactly what the hell I'm on about and knows exactly what is/isn't macro photography and how to generate professional level scientific imagery. If you want to believe that macro is some vague concept lacking definition then that's your opinion, but don't try to suggest that the professional community doesn't have a very well defined idea of what it is.
I'm not going to waste my time responding to a reference to an old photography book and I'm not going to waste my time providing information about what constitutes macro photography when this information is freely available on the web should someone expend the energy required to look for it.
Just because tons of laypeople misuse technical terms doesn't mean the definition of that term changes. It is what it is. Lots of laypeople absolutely mangle medical terminology yet Doctors don't rip up their textbooks and papers and say 'oh well, looks of people on the web get this anatomical feature completely mixed-up with this other one - let's just rename it!'.
I have no problem with people calling a whole range of photos 'macro photos' if it's a speedy way of conveying meaning. Likewise, I don't care if camera manufacturers use the term 'macro mode' to help people understand a certain function helps them focus up close. BUT... let's no pretend that the true definition of the term has changed - it is what it is.
- Messages
- 9,227
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As far as I'm concerned the standard for a macro lens is whatever magnification that Canon, nikon sigma etc use for their lenses sold as macro lenses eg the sigma 105
These all have the same magnification as far as I know and most people would consider this as the standard
A shot taken at the minimum focus distance with a sigma 105 is a 1:1 macro
anything else to most people is irrelevant
anyway I'll carry on with my closeups
!
These all have the same magnification as far as I know and most people would consider this as the standard
A shot taken at the minimum focus distance with a sigma 105 is a 1:1 macro
anything else to most people is irrelevant
anyway I'll carry on with my closeups
Last edited:
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
It's no different to people using the term telephoto to describe a lens with a long focal length. It actual means a lens which is physically shorter than it's focal length - even a wide angle lens can be telephoto.
This is probably a more mis-used term than macro.
So no need for anyone to ever ask a question on a forum again!!
Steve.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,227
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Agree with you there
I know 'cause I'm a professional with professional training. If you don't know, f*** off and find out.
Just the caring, sharing attitude the forum needs.
And anyway whats wrong with discussing stuff like that its what a forum is for
- Messages
- 29,408
- Name
- Marcel
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's not an acceptable attitude on here. This forum is about sharing information, regardless of whether you think it is basic, advanced, relevant or not. This is where people go to when they want to 'FOFO', so if you're not here to spoon feed information to people, then keep quiet about it.
- Messages
- 6,408
- Edit My Images
- No
Another example off the decline in academic standards that's universally denied !
Last edited:
The other side to that coin is that people also shouldn't actively participate in open conversation if they are not receptive to information and guidance offered to them. They also shouldn't expect people to trawl the web and spend valuable time providing lengthy rebuttals just because they think it's their right for their claims to stand true unless someone bothers to disprove them. There has to be some sort of active participation from people on here otherwise why have FAQ and pinned threads, etc? Because some information doesn't require a 3rd party go gather it and write it up each and every time someone makes the same misguided claims.
Either way, point taken. I will take my info elsewhere.
Last edited:
simon ess
Just call me Roxanne.
- Messages
- 9,623
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You seem happy to do just that, however.
RedRobin
Dances With Dogs
- Messages
- 9,314
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Crikey! This (now suspended/banned) member richardm is very angry and unpleasant in his manner - Arrogant too. I don't know what kind of professional he is (medical, I think) but he certainly is grossly lacking in diplomacy and good manners towards other members of this TP online community!
I would have had far more respect for what he had to say if he had posted politely even to tell us we were all wrong.
I would have had far more respect for what he had to say if he had posted politely even to tell us we were all wrong.
