Can anyone explain to me why a F/14 shot with a thirty second exposure isn't macro

[JBW]

Tony 'Cognito' has taken exception to my naming my Thai coin shot a macro because it was cropped and shot at F/14 with a thirty second exposure.

possibly he has a point with the crop but what does the F/ stop or shutter speed have to do with it?

[Mike Buckley]

The aperture and shutter speed settings in and of themselves have absolutely nothing to do with whether an image is labeled a macro shot. However, there are implications about those settings that can lead one to surmise the likelihood of whether the image is a macro shot.

Many people consider that for an image to be labeled a macro shot, it has to be taken at a magnification ratio of 1:1 or larger. The magnification ratio is indicated on your Tamron macro lens in a gold font. More important, there is no widely regarded standard as to the definition of a macro shot or even a macro lens. As an example, many lenses that aren't capable of producing anywhere near that magnification ratio are marketed by their manufacturers as macro lenses.

My recommendation is that you always use the term, close-up, as that will keep the people at bay who focus so intently on labels that supposedly identify a characteristic of a photo. That's because it's almost impossible to refute whether an image is a close-up except in the most obvious situations.

[JBW]

The aperture and shutter speed settings in and of themselves have absolutely nothing to do with whether an image is labeled a macro shot. However, there are implications about those settings that can lead one to surmise the likelihood of whether the image is a macro shot.

Many people consider that for an image to be labeled a macro shot, it has to be taken at a magnification ratio of 1:1 or larger. The magnification ratio is indicated on your Tamron macro lens in a gold font. More important, there is no widely regarded standard as to the definition of a macro shot or even a macro lens. As an example, many lenses that aren't capable of producing anywhere near that magnification ratio are marketed by their manufacturers as macro lenses.

My recommendation is that you always use the term, close-up, as that will keep the people at bay who focus so intently on labels that supposedly identify a characteristic of a photo. That's because it's almost impossible to refute whether an image is a close-up except in the most obvious situations.

Thanks Mike, I will use 'close-up' from now on. And I shall continue to shoot close-ups with as slow a shutter speed as possible at whatever F/ stop works and with my Sony Alpha an ISO of 100. And I'll do that because I enjoy the look of the shot and the challenge.

[DanK]

Aperture and shutter speed are not relevant to whether a photo is macro. Personally, I don't worry about the 1:1 cutoff. That would imply that no photo taken with a macro lens is a macro unless it is taken at minimum focusing distance or is cropped. Many of my macros are taken at apertures similar to yours and with long exposures. I'm sure many are less than 1:1. The number of people who have told me that they aren't really macros is zero, I think. I'll call them macros regardless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rpcrowe]

When I began in photography, there was generally a very strict definition to the term "macro" and this was imagery that was the same size as the subject (1:1) to five times the size (5:1).
When the size of the image was greater than five times the size o the subject, it was defined as "Micro-Photography". It did not have to be, but could be, shot through a microscope. When the image size was less than the subject size it was classified as "Close-up Photography".
Then the definitions were muddied:
First by Nikon who called their "macro" lenses "Micro Nikkors" and then by the manufacturers of many zoom lenses who added the sales-pitch "macro" to their zooms that had a fairly close focusing capability: 1:3 or so. They felt that their sales pitch was justified since an image shot with their lenses would seldom be viewed in its original negative (this was in the days of film photography) size but, would usually be printed to 4x6 or so. That enlargement would produce a print of "about a 1:1 ratio"
I personally think that the time for strict definition of Micro, Macro and close-up photography has ended because, there would be only one commercially available lens capable of achieving a "hard-line" macro image any greater than 1:1 without the use of accessory devices; the Canon MP-65.
Still being an old-timer, I will often describe shots as closeup/macro photos...
By the way, some lenses termed "macro" needed an accesory to produce 1:1 imagery. The original Canon 50mm f/2.5, the Phoenix 100mm f/3.5 and the Vivitar, Series One 90mm f/2.8 lenses all needed adapters to produce 1:1 images but, they were still legitimately called "macro-lenses"...

[Mike Buckley]

there would be only one commercially available lens capable of achieving a "hard-line" macro image any greater than 1:1 without the use of accessory devices; the Canon MP-65.

The Venus/Laowa 60mm macro lens achieves 2:1 magnification with no additional accessories.

[Cogito]

Tony 'Cognito' has taken exception to my naming my Thai coin shot a macro because it was cropped and shot at F/14 with a thirty second exposure. possibly he has a point with the crop but what does the F/ stop or shutter speed have to do with it?

My apologies to referring to the f stop and exposure. Completely irresponsible. But you know my opinion on macros, see The Eye Of The Tuko: really quite amazing. you even clicked my reply as helpful!!!
And, by the way, I would appreciate you getting my identity correct. So to quote yourself,

Pay attention Tony and do try to keep up.

[rpcrowe]

The Venus/Laowa 60mm macro lens achieves 2:1 magnification with no additional accessories.

I was not familiar with this lens...

[JBW]

My apologies to referring to the f stop and exposure. Completely irresponsible. But you know my opinion on macros, see The Eye Of The Tuko: really quite amazing. you even clicked my reply as helpful!!!
And, by the way, I would appreciate you getting my identity correct. So to quote yourself,

Alright I'll call you Tony from now on. Yes your reply was helpful then because it was an honest exchange of differing opinions.