Your defiinition of "macro"

[Saorsa]

I would contend that the whole term is now meaningless. Magnification is simply a number that might be significant if we were still calculating exposure based on lens extension.

It was useful scientifically when you could take direct measurements from film if you knew the magnification. Nowadays though, that is done from knowledge of the sensor pixel size.

I think it would take a great deal of work for the average person on their PC to get an exactly sized representation on any screen. My old 55mm f3.5 micro lens actually had a magnification scale on it as did some of my other old lenses. Useful for calculating exposure but not much else.


Like fixed aspect ratios, they are a relic of the past.

[rpcrowe]

Early in my photographic career there were universally accepted parameters for Close-up, Macro and micro photography. If memory serves me: up to about a 1:5 ratio = close-up photography; 1:5 to 1:1 ratio = macro photography and greater than 1:1 = Micro photography. This latter grouping also included the actual shooting of imagery through a microscope. Lots of us used relatively short focal length lenses on a bellows for some very high magnification. In fact many of us used enlarging lenses on a bellows for high ratio imagery. These enlarging lenses were relatively inexpensive, yet did a very good job because they were sharp and had excellent flat field reproduction.

Sometime around the mid-1960's when zoom lenses began to become popular for still photography, manufacturers began to use an advertising ploy in designating certain close focusing zoom lenses as "macro". The object behind this was, of course, to sell more lenses but, as a rationale, they used the fact that a 4x6 inch image enlarged from the negative of one of these lenses on a 35mm camera was actually 1:1 or thereabouts in ratio - even though the original image was not 1:1.

True "MACRO" lenses are optimized for close focusing and for high reproduction ratios. There are some lenses which are "TRUE MACRO" lenses and don't have the capability of 1:1 reproduction without an accessory lens. An example of this is the older Canon 50mm f/2.5 Macro which achieved 1:2 magnification and needed an adapter to get to 1:1. During my film days I shot 35mm with a 90mm Vivitar, Series One, 90mm, f/2.5 macro lens which also produced 1:2 imagery and used an adapter to get to 1:1. If I remember correctly, Nikon also produced Macro/Micro lenses which needed an accessory to get to a 1:1 ratio. BTW: Nikon, it seems, has always labelled their 'macro" lenses as "Micro-Nikkors".

Another facet of "true macro" lenses i that they often had the reproduction ratio as part of the focusing scale.

In a nutshell, you can shoot macro imagery with just about any lens if you use a bellows, extension tube or tubes or a close-up filter. But, only specific lenses are actually "macro" lenses while macro photos are really now any close-up images.

[Mike Buckley]

I would contend that the whole term is now meaningless.

Maybe you can suggest another term or terms that would be meaningful in the context of my cataloging needs.

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks for providing that history, Richard. Very interesting! It also has potential implications regarding whatever cataloging decision I ultimately make.

[george013]

Maybe you can suggest another term or terms that would be meaningful in the context of my cataloging needs.

Use the content of your pictures.

George

[Mike Buckley]

I already catalog my photos according to their image content as well as other factors. I'm concentrating now on how to catalog the particular style generally associated with close-up and macro photography.

[rpcrowe]

Mike, why not catalog them as "close-up" photography and disregard the "macro" terminology...

[Mike Buckley]

Richard: I already have other photos cataloged as "close-up," though as part of this process of considering how to catalog the macro photos I'm reconsidering the usefulness of how I have been using the "close-up" term.

[Shadowman]

When I first delved into macro it was defined as macro(1:1) ratio, everythong else was closeup photography. So using that definition my query is "how large can an object be to still be defined as a macro image?

[xpatUSA]

When I first delved into macro it was defined as macro(1:1) ratio, everything else was closeup photography. So using that definition my query is "how large can an object be to still be defined as a macro image?

No larger than the active dimensions of the sensor, is the obvious answer, eh?

[Mike Buckley]

No larger than the active dimensions of the sensor, is the obvious answer, eh?

That would perhaps be reasonable so long as the "sensor" means any light-sensitive material that captures the image. When you use that definition, the object could be no more than about 1/2" tall, as in the case of my camera's sensor, or no larger than 4" tall, as in the case of a 4" x 5" sheet of film. It doesn't make any practical sense to me to consider two objects of such different size to be lopped into the same style of photography that we call "macro."

[george013]

That would perhaps be reasonable so long as the "sensor" means any light-sensitive material that captures the image. When you use that definition, the object could be no more than about 1/2" tall, as in the case of my camera's sensor, or no larger than 4" tall, as in the case of a 4" x 5" sheet of film. It doesn't make any practical sense to me to consider two objects of such different size to be lopped into the same style of photography that we call "macro."

Your bug on dslr will be macro, your flower on that same camera will be close-up, and that same flower on 4x5 will be macro again. I think you're looking for differences that aren't there.

George

[Mike Buckley]

Your bug on dslr will be macro, your flower on that same camera will be close-up, and that same flower on 4x5 will be macro again.

For cataloging purposes, it makes no sense to me that the bug and flower photographed using a DSLR and a 4x5, respectively, would both be considered macro photography. It makes sense for other purposes mostly of a scientific nature but not for cataloging purposes that describe the style of the photo. That's part of my quandary.

[Stagecoach]

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!

Macro : When the ratio between subject physical size and sensor (film) physical size is 1:1. Or better.

I use this definition because it's been included in just about every book and article I have read about macro protography.

But I don't bother about that too much.

With regard to cataloging and being able to search for examples, keywords/data possibilities;

a) Tamron 90mm.
b) 1:1, 1:2, 1:3 e.t.c magnification ratio read from the lens.
c) Extension tube size if used.
d) Ref to confirmation image*

By d) I'm suggesting that if there is a particular need to accurately know the exact physical size of a subject at a later date whilst shooting it you take a pic of the mm markings of a steel rule whilst at the same lens/combo focusing distance.

It depends upon how far you want to go really.

[DanK]

For cataloging purposes, it makes no sense to me that the bug and flower photographed using a DSLR and a 4x5, respectively, would both be considered macro photography. It makes sense for other purposes mostly of a scientific nature but not for cataloging purposes that describe the style of the photo.

Good point. This is one reason why I think it makes more sense to catalog based on the image than on the underlying math. 1:1 on a 4 x 5 would allow you to include, say, two entire house sparrows in the frame--hardly what I think of as macro photography. 1:1 on the crop-sensor camera I use for field macro work wouldn't even let me get the entire head of one of the pair. It makes no sense to me to treat these as similar types of photographs simply because they were both captured at whatever the minimum focusing distance was for each camera. Of course, you could crop the 4 x 5, but then you would be using some criterion other than magnification.

Not worth it, IMHO. Better just to lump together similar photos.

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks to everyone for your help in the thread! I have finally come to the following executive decision:

I will use two terms, close-up and super close-up, to catalog my images made in the style having to do with relatively large magnification of relatively small objects. The term, close-up, will be used to very subjectively tag images that typically have the look and feel of that style when made using only a standard lens (no macro lens, no extension tubes, etc.). The term, super close-up, will be used to tag images that have the look and feel of that style made in a higher magnification typically requiring using a macro lens, extension tubes and/or the like.

Purely as a matter of my own interest, I will also note the approximate magnification ratio of super close-up photos in the image file's metadata. Doing so will allow me to consider that information one image at a time or to conduct a search of all images made at a particular magnification ratio or range of magnification ratios. I am new at making images that would be tagged as super close-up, but my guess at this point is that images that have that look and feel will be made at a magnification ratio of about 1:5 or higher.

Notice that I decided the term, macro, is not to be used for cataloging purposes despite that that was my initial intention when I started the thread. That decision is rooted in the observation that almost all relevant use of the term has to do with how manufacturers market their lenses, not with any decisions a photographer would make before releasing the shutter. For those who limit the definition of macro photography to be photos made at a magnification ratio of 1:1 or higher, consider the macro lens that achieves that magnification but no higher, which is the typical macro lens. That means in practical terms that only about 1% of the magnification ratios achieved when using that lens produce macro images. If 99% of the hair on a horse was white and 1% was brown, we wouldn't call it a brown horse. So, I understand why manufacturers include the lower magnification ratios such as 1:2 and even lower in the range that justifies calling their lenses macro lenses; without including those lower magnification ratios, we would be calling my lens a macro lens when only 1% of its capabilities produces images made at 1:1.

[revi]

That seems to be the same definition as traditionally used with 35mm film: 1:1 magnification.

There's one important change at that point: for larger magnifications, the film-lens distance is greater than the object-lens distance. As a consequence, it was sometimes suggested that you got better results at larger magnification with the lens reversed (i.e. with the front lens pointing to the camera). That required use of a bellows, which have almost disappeared it seems. I have to admit, getting a bit of dust on 35 mm film isn't the same thing as getting a bit of dust on a 35mm sensor... (on the sensor, the bits accumulate).

[Shadowman]

Thanks to everyone for your help in the thread! I have finally come to the following executive decision:

I will use two terms, close-up and super close-up, to catalog my images made in the style having to do with relatively large magnification of relatively small objects. The term, close-up, will be used to very subjectively tag images that typically have the look and feel of that style when made using only a standard lens (no macro lens, no extension tubes, etc.). The term, super close-up, will be used to tag images that have the look and feel of that style made in a higher magnification typically requiring using a macro lens, extension tubes and/or the like.

Purely as a matter of my own interest, I will also note the approximate magnification ratio of super close-up photos in the image file's metadata. Doing so will allow me to consider that information one image at a time or to conduct a search of all images made at a particular magnification ratio or range of magnification ratios. I am new at making images that would be tagged as super close-up, but my guess at this point is that images that have that look and feel will be made at a magnification ratio of about 1:5 or higher.

Notice that I decided the term, macro, is not to be used for cataloging purposes despite that that was my initial intention when I started the thread. That decision is rooted in the observation that almost all relevant use of the term has to do with how manufacturers market their lenses, not with any decisions a photographer would make before releasing the shutter. For those who limit the definition of macro photography to be photos made at a magnification ratio of 1:1 or higher, consider the macro lens that achieves that magnification but no higher, which is the typical macro lens. That means in practical terms that only about 1% of the magnification ratios achieved when using that lens produce macro images. If 99% of the hair on a horse was white and 1% was brown, we wouldn't call it a brown horse. So, I understand why manufacturers include the lower magnification ratios such as 1:2 and even lower in the range that justifies calling their lenses macro lenses; without including those lower magnification ratios, we would be calling my lens a macro lens when only 1% of its capabilities produces images made at 1:1.

I wonder if a viewer who abides by the 1:1 ratio definition would cry foul if your image is actually 1:1.4 or 1:1.1? I'm sure the viewer would say no that's not a macro image; that's a closeup and I were the photographer I'd say fine with me.

[Round Tuit]

Hi Mike,

I am a bit late to look at this thread but I have a suggestion that you might want to consider to assist with the cataloguing of your photos. If you pick a maximun physical size that fits in the picture frame as your criteria, then the sensor size used to take the picture will become irrelevant. For example you could decide that a picture that represent one inch of physical size is a super close-up and up to say five inches is a close-up. How you get a picture of that size(FF, Crop Frame or even a crop of a larger picture) would then be irrelevant and you would achieve the consistency of style that you are looking for.

FWIW,

André

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks for the idea, André. The problematic issue with it is that I have already cataloged decades of images for which I don't know the size of the physical scene and have no practical way of determining it. Additionally, I don't want to have to determine that size when making future photos. Even so, keep those ideas coming! Thanks again!