bee on flower for c&c

[Carla_]

Here is another from today. How'd I do on comp/exposure/interest/sharpness? Does this count as a macro shot?

Thanks!

Carla

 

[greybeard68 41]

Wow, beautiful

 

[Joel_W]

Excellent composition. It's very interesting and appealing to one's eye. Exposure seems dead on. I'd call this a macro picture, as the wasp looks about life size.

 

[Ernicus]

Excellent composition. It's very interesting and appealing to one's eye. Exposure seems dead on. I'd call this a macro picture, as the wasp looks about life size.

I thought true macro was to achiee the 1:1 ratio. Even though the wasp appears life size, its not encompassing the entire sensor and making up the whole shot. Am I confused?

 

[Carla_]

Joel and Greybeard, Thanks!

Ernicus, I didn't use a macro lens, it was a telephoto at 200 mm. Does that mean it can't be a true macro?

 

[Ernicus]

Joel and Greybeard, Thanks!

Ernicus, I didn't use a macro lens, it was a telephoto at 200 mm. Does that mean it can't be a true macro?

I dunno...I'm just going by what I've read. I understood a true macro image to be one that fills up the entire sensor giving a true 1:1 ratio. There are certainly ones that qualify as macro due to their closeness, even without a "macro" lens...but some folks get technical and like to split hairs...so um...I dunno. lol. Maybe that's a true macro of the flower...with a bee bonus, yet not a macro of the bee. lol. I'm sure someone who knows better will chime in. There are some great macro shooters on here.

 

[jhenry330]

Right, nothing about this photo speaks as a macro to me. Nice pic though. Macro shots with a macro lens reveals more than what is noticeable to the naked eye.

 

[RxForB3]

From what I understand, you have part of it right, ernicus. Yes, it's an issue of 1:1 ratio. But that doesn't mean that it fills the entire sensor. I think of it this way: A 1:1 ratio is achieved when the size of the subject in the resulting photo is proportionally the same as the subject compared to the sensor. Say you have an ant that is 1/4 the size physically as the sensor. Then the resulting 1:1 photo will have the ant taking up 1/4 of the photo. Does that make sense? I could be wrong, though...

 

[Ernicus]

Yeah that makes sense. So the size of the subject in respect to the sensors size, relative to the size of subject in photo as related to size of photo. If that's true...then yeah, got it. If not, then um....hrmm. lol.