Does This Count As Macro Or is It Just A Close-up?

[JBW]

I did very little enhancing with this photo. The flower really is that incredibly bright and the greens are that green.

[rpcrowe]

The term "macro" has been diluted over recent times. Originally, "macro" referred to images which were at least 1:1 image ratio. However, popular usage has changed that strict definition to one referring to virtually any close up image. An image with less than a 1:1 ratio was called a close-up image.

I think that the change in definition began when lens manufacturers, as a sales gimmick, started labeling zoom lenses which produced 1:3 or even 1:5 imagery as "macro". Their rationale was that when the 35mm image was blown up to the standard 4-inch x 6-inch size, the image ratio was then actually 1:1 or possibly greater.

If we hold true to the original definition, most true macro lenses only produce macro imagery when at highest image ratio or 1:1. The one lens which produces the gamut of macro ratios is the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 macro. However, that lens will only shoot in the old macro range from 1:1 to 5:1 and, thus is a very specialized lens.

I would not worry too much about the strict "macro" definition because that is probably a bit out-dated. It is probably O.K. to use macro and close-up terms fairly interchangeably. O.K. with me anyway!

[JBW]

The term "macro" has been diluted over recent times. Originally, "macro" referred to images which were at least 1:1 image ratio. However, popular usage has changed that strict definition to one referring to virtually any close up image. An image with less than a 1:1 ratio was called a close-up image.

I think that the change in definition began when lens manufacturers, as a sales gimmick, started labeling zoom lenses which produced 1:3 or even 1:5 imagery as "macro". Their rationale was that when the 35mm image was blown up to the standard 4-inch x 6-inch size, the image ratio was then actually 1:1 or possibly greater.

If we hold true to the original definition, most true macro lenses only produce macro imagery when at highest image ratio or 1:1. The one lens which produces the gamut of macro ratios is the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 macro. However, that lens will only shoot in the old macro range from 1:1 to 5:1 and, thus is a very specialized lens.

I would not worry too much about the strict "macro" definition because that is probably a bit out-dated. It is probably O.K. to use macro and close-up terms fairly interchangeably. O.K. with me anyway!

fair enough. down here in the tropics i can be as laid back as a Californian

[Stagecoach]

Brian,

I would agree fully with what Richard has said.

What is more significant is that you took this image in 'Manual' taking control of both aperture and speed, well done. Have a look at the hairs around the edge of the red flower, a good indication of sharpness possible with your camera and what we also try and achieve with the hairs on the critters.

Grahame

[JBW]

Brian,

I would agree fully with what Richard has said.

What is more significant is that you took this image in 'Manual' taking control of both aperture and speed, well done. Have a look at the hairs around the edge of the red flower, a good indication of sharpness possible with your camera and what we also try and achieve with the hairs on the critters.

Grahame

thanks but the mess I made of my attempts at a hairy caterpillar will never be seen here.

[rawill]

To Brian JBW.

Thank you for asking the question, I am a novice. When I looked the photo without reading to posts I thought, its a close up, and a very good one.

Now the explanations have been given of course I haven't got a clue, macro or close up!.
But I have learn't a lot from the posts.

Again thanks.

[JBW]

To Brian JBW.

Thank you for asking the question, I am a novice. When I looked the photo without reading to posts I thought, its a close up, and a very good one.

Now the explanations have been given of course I haven't got a clue, macro or close up!.
But I have learn't a lot from the posts.

Again thanks.

More than welcome, we are both newbees.

[Mike Buckley]

I would not worry too much about the strict "macro" definition because that is probably a bit out-dated. It is probably O.K.

It's not OK with me. That's because I have a macro lens on my Christmas wish list and I don't want my wife telling me that I don't need one because I already have close-up capability.

[Otavio]

It's not OK with me. That's because I have a macro lens on my Christmas wish list and I don't want my wife telling me that I don't need one because I already have close-up capability.

Hadnt thought about this strategy, Mike. I will try that with my wife, probably for 2014 Xmas, as this year's CAPEX deadline is already gone...

Brian, I am with Richard. Any magnitude out of the macro threshold (1:1) would not be technically macro, but close up, instead. And, of course, 1:1 is only the threshold. You can combine gearing (macro lens, extension tubes, etc) to achieve higher magnitudes (2:1, 4:1, etc).

[chauncey]

Don't be too quick to write off that macro lens as being useful only for macro work...they generally have superior MTF characteristics and can be used at longer range with great detail output.