Your defiinition of "macro"

[Mike Buckley]

Now that I am regularly using a macro lens, I want to catalog my images that are truly macro as macro images. There seems to be no consensus about the definition of "macro," so I would appreciate learning your definition and why you use it. I'm referring to the magnification ratio of the physical scene relative to the size of the sensor or film, not the magnification ratio of the physical scene relative to the display size of the photo.

Thanks in advance for the discussion!

[george013]

Now that I am regularly using a macro lens, I want to catalog my images that are truly macro as macro images. There seems to be no consensus about the definition of "macro," so I would appreciate learning your definition and why you use it. I'm referring to the magnification ratio of the physical scene relative to the size of the sensor or film, not the magnification ratio of the physical scene relative to the display size of the photo.

Thanks in advance for the discussion!

Why is that so important? It looks to me like the question "what is the best lens for this camera".

Manufactures call some lenses macro or micro to put the attention to the short focal distance they can use. How that's be used is up to the photographer. And the subject he choices.

George

[DanK]

I don't think it is too helpful to look for a strict definition. In my view, anything that entails a high level of magnification is macro, and when I do macro work, I rarely think about the magnification ratio. My modal shot for bugs is somewhat higher than 1:1; my modal shot for flowers is considerably less.

I suppose that if pushed, I would say that I don't generally think of photos with less than 1:2 (that is, 0.5) magnification as "macro," but I don't know that this has any real consequence for me. For example, I recently splurged on a Canon 100-400II. One reason I bought it rather than one of the reasonable but cheaper competitors is that it has a higher maximum magnification ratio: 0.31x. I figure that will be useful for full-body shots of large insects at a distance, although perhaps with a little cropping. Will that not count as "macro?" Beats me.

[Mike Buckley]

Why is that so important?

As my first post explained, it's important when deciding whether to catalog a particular image as being a macro image.

[Mike Buckley]

Dan,

Your explanation is the same as my thinking, which is exactly why I'm having so much trouble coming up with the criteria for cataloging this or that image as a macro. I've been cataloging certain images as close-up, but now I want to make a distinction in my catalog between close-up images and macro images. Adequately defining that distinction so far eludes me.

[Manfred M]

The textbook definition was always a magnification of 1:1 or better, but that seems to have gone out the window in many cases as we see lenses that are 1:2 and even 1:3 marketed as "macro".

[billtils]

... I want to make a distinction in my catalog between close-up images and macro images. Adequately defining that distinction so far eludes me.

I suspect that you are far from alone in that Mike. However, you asked for feedback on how others catalog an image as "macro" and mine is somewhat empirical in the sense of not being defined by theory or logic. My macro catalog consists of images of something small, shot close-up and with a magnification of 1:1. A BIF shot doesn't count, nor do whole plants even if highly cropped to feature stamens, and of course the 'close-up' part is at variance with your goal.

If you have an idea that sits comfortably in your mind and that you can be consistent with in cataloging, go for it.
It could be as simple as "if the shot used a lens that would be generally accepted as 'macro' then the shot is a macro" ...

[Andrew1]

With the available equipment, processing and influences of photographers in general, the definition has become a bit fluid. Possibly from ignorance of the established norms and learning from manufacturers wording in their glossies. If you wish, set your own boundaries for how you want to fit the classifications into your own catalogue. It doesn't matter within your own work. I would suggest you write it down and stick to it so you too don't wander from your own norms.

However, the 1:1 ratio has been used for some time and is the point of reference in much of the documentation you will find. If you want to be able review your photos or discuss them with others then I would suggest you stick to the 1:1 to avoid confusion and some strange looks.

[Mike Buckley]

Should it matter in the context of this discussion that the size of the scene is different at a 1:1 ratio (or any given ratio) depending on the size of the camera's sensor?

[DanK]

Dan,

Your explanation is the same as my thinking, which is exactly why I'm having so much trouble coming up with the criteria for cataloging this or that image as a macro. I've been cataloging certain images as close-up, but now I want to make a distinction in my catalog between close-up images and macro images. Adequately defining that distinction so far eludes me.

I've shown whatever we are calling these photos to countless people, and other than a handful of photographers, no one has even asked me about magnification ratios. For example, look at my flower gallery. (I apologize; it desperately needs culling, but I haven't found the time.) You'll see some images that are a good bit higher than 1:1 and others that are a lot lower. The number of people who have commented to me about this is exactly zero. And I honestly can't tell you what the magnification of many of them is. I would have to guess.

If I were treating it as a macro gallery, I might drop some that have particularly low magnification. I did a book some time ago, and I don't think I picked any that were below 1:1, or at least much below.

I think the bottom line for me is that if it is high enough in magnification that it provides an unusual view, I'm inclined to toss it in.

[xpatUSA]

Of some interest perhaps is:

"The term photo-macrograph was proposed in 1899 by W. H. Walmsley for close-up images with less than 10 diameters magnification, to distinguish from true photo-micrographs."

Quoted from the Wiki of course:

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

There's a table of macro lenses in there, including a 90mm Schneider Kreuznach of "only" 1:4 mag.

It also says that "Macro" lenses are specifically designed for close-up work, with a long barrel for close focusing and optimized for high reproduction ratios.

When shooting watches with a macro lens on my 1.7 crop camera or my m4/3, 1:1 gets me only 13mm of the watch, so I end up with between say 1:3 and 1:5 - and, personally, I would call those shots "close-ups" rather than "macros".

As to "macro" itself, I side with the "1:1 or bigger" folks.

[Mike Buckley]

I reviewed every image in your flower gallery, Dan, and I would have an exceptionally difficult time culling more than a handful of them. More to the point, half of them would be culled only because of repetition issues, not quality issues.

The reason I want to make the cataloging distinction between "close-up" and "macro" is so I can more easily create a slide show of just one of the two kinds. The people I would typically present the slideshow to would rarely if ever ask about the magnification.

I think the bottom line for me is that if it is high enough in magnification that it provides an unusual view, I'm inclined to toss it in.

That concept serves at least as a good point of departure for me and may very well prove to be my final distinction. I hadn't thought of that criterion, so this is very helpful.

[DanK]

I reviewed every image in your flower gallery, Dan, and I would have an exceptionally difficult time culling more than a handful of them. More to the point, half of them would be culled only because of repetition issues, not quality issues.

Thanks, Mike. Very kind of you.

[Mike Buckley]

Ted: I had seen a few days ago the website you provided. Its references to "true" macro and the implication that there are other types of macro images helped lead to my current ambiguity about whatever criteria I might use. I couldn't help but notice the idea presented in that article that "In the digital age, a 'true' macro photograph can be more practically defined as a photograph with a vertical subject height of 24 mm or less."

[Rent]

When does macro become micro ?

[Black Pearl]

I suppose if I wanted to be pedantic in my filing then only those taken 1:1 or greater would be included but I'd be inclined to be a little more loose and include anything any normal person would describe as being a small subject that filled a significant part of the frame.

[dem]

As my first post explained, it's important when deciding whether to catalog a particular image as being a macro image.

For cataloguing purpose why not have several tags that reflect magnification:

under 1:1 - supermacro
1:1 to 1:2 - macro
1:2 to 1:5 - closeup

[Mike Buckley]

I like your idea as well, Dem. Using several categories might provide the needed flexibility when assembling slide shows, as I could include more than one particular category in the slideshow while maintaining thematic consistency.

[tclune]

I learned on a Crown Graphic 4x5" camera. In those days, "macro" meant that you double-extended the bellows. When you did so, a contact print would be life size. Using any other extension would not be as directly scalable to real-world items, and would require including a ruler or the like in the photograph. There were tabs on the bellows track to indicate where the double-extension point was. FWIW

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks for that, Tom. I was actually wondering what medium and large format camera users considered "macro."