Can this be considered macro?

[Woolsocks]

Hello guys. So are the shots to small to be macro? Considered?

 

[petrochemist]

The usual definition I've seen for macro is having a subject reproduced at least life size on the sensor. In some cases this is capped at ten times life size, but most ignore this end.
If shot with a large format camera (typically 5"x4" 'sensor' or larger) these would meet that criteria

Lens manufacturers have often used a more generous definition to put 'macro' on their lenses - I assume it was something like Life size in a normal print. They've certainly plastered macro on zooms that cant manage 1/4 life size. Your first shot certainly meets that and might meet the stricter definition depending on the camera used.

I'd personally call them close up's, so discussion on them would hopefully cover more how nice they are rather than digress into arguments into are they really macro.

FWIW I believe the original use of macro was to indicate that special considerations had to be made for the bellows extension, as the image would be darkened enough that extra exposure became required. Bellows extension correction is often applied in large format portraiture even if the shot isn't quite macro, but if this ignored the film latitude prevents the shot from being totally ruined
This sort of correction is irrelevant when the camera is doing the exposure calculations based on through the lens metering.

 

[407370]

Looks like macro to me.

I photograph full size plants using a Macro lens and focus stacking and call that macro.

It is what it is. Labels are for other people to apply.

CHEERS
JBO