Antique Typewriter, whatcha think?

[pauliec]

I was a little bored and wanted to try out my new speedlight, so I took some quick macro shots of an antique Remington typewriter that I have. I like the way they turned out, after a little post processing. Comments?

 

[tirediron]

Nicely done. I think #1 would be stronger if we could there was greater DoF and we read the brand name.

 

[pauliec]

Nicely done. I think #1 would be stronger if we could there was greater DoF and we read the brand name.

Yeah, I thought about that when I was editing the photos. Ah well.

It's a Remington Quiet-Riter, in case anyone is interested.

 

[Foxwolfe]

You may or may not care, and I'm not trying to sound like an ass or anything but from what I've learned there is a difference between "close up" and true "macro" pictures.

True macro shots consist of the the image that is recorded on the film (sensor) being a 1:1 aspect ratio to the actual object being photographed. While this can be slightly confusing or unclear, what it means is that (and I'm going to use film for an example since its easier for me) if you were to take a macro shot of a penny, the image recorded on the 35mm film itself would be the exact same size as the actual penny if compared side to side.

If any of this is incorrect please feel free to correct me, I just thought I'd pass on a bit of friendly knowledge.

As for the actual images I like how the first one came out best but do agree that being able to read all of the text at the top of the shot might have made it better.

 

[pauliec]

You may or may not care, and I'm not trying to sound like an ass or anything but from what I've learned there is a difference between "close up" and true "macro" pictures.

True macro shots consist of the the image that is recorded on the film (sensor) being a 1:1 aspect ratio to the actual object being photographed. While this can be slightly confusing or unclear, what it means is that (and I'm going to use film for an example since its easier for me) if you were to take a macro shot of a penny, the image recorded on the 35mm film itself would be the exact same size as the actual penny if compared side to side.

If any of this is incorrect please feel free to correct me, I just thought I'd pass on a bit of friendly knowledge.

Is that still true in the age of digital photography, though? Because I've seen many "macro" shots that are much larger than the actual object itself.

 

[Foxwolfe]

As far as I know the definition has not changed, its just that with things going digital the term has been used as a marketing tool more than anything.