Close Up Things

jeffashman

TPF Supporters
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2021
Messages
10,885
Reaction score
6,524
Location
The Colony, Texas, USA
Website
www.flickr.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Hemmed and hawed about whether to put these in the macro forum or here, given that I used the Sigma 105mm macro lens, but I decided on general. I also used the Sigma x1.4 extender.

1 Guinea Paper Wasp
jun19202201 by Jeff Ashman, on Flickr

2 Leaf-hopper Assassin Bug
jun19202203 by Jeff Ashman, on Flickr

3 Indian Blanket flower in my Personal Prairie Patch
jun19202204 by Jeff Ashman, on Flickr

Ever get an assassin bug down your shirt before? Did you know they bite? They hurt like hell and leave a huge welt. I can personally attest to that.
 
Nice set. They'd all fall under the Macro umbrella for me.
 
Nice set, Jeff. If I don't zoom in super close like you would expect to see with a macro lens, I'll put them here or in "Nature & Wildlife."
 
Nice set.
Thanks!
Nice set, Jeff. If I don't zoom in super close like you would expect to see with a macro lens, I'll put them here or in "Nature & Wildlife."
Thanks! Yep, it's a tough call between what is a macro and what is a close-up taken with a macro lens.
 
Thanks!

Thanks! Yep, it's a tough call between what is a macro and what is a close-up taken with a macro lens.
I don't think 'taken with a macro lens' has any significance on if its a macro shot or not.
I've taken shots at 6 times life size with ordinary lenses (definitely macro, even if not much good) yet none of my 'macro' lenses reach lifesize unaided the primes typically reaching half life size (so don't meet the usual 1:1 definition of macro).

All the shots are excellent, certainly good enough to be grouped with macro in most places even if they aren't lifesize. I personally would also put shots like these here or in Nature & Wildlife. Then any debate on what constitutes macro is irrelevant.

FWIWI know of one group that is extremely fussy about their definition of macro - if a subject is more than 36mm across it will be rejected.
 
Hemmed and hawed about whether to put these in the macro forum or here, given that I used the Sigma 105mm macro lens, but I decided on general. I also used the Sigma x1.4 extender.

1 Guinea Paper Wasp
jun19202201 by Jeff Ashman, on Flickr

2 Leaf-hopper Assassin Bug
jun19202203 by Jeff Ashman, on Flickr

3 Indian Blanket flower in my Personal Prairie Patch
jun19202204 by Jeff Ashman, on Flickr

Ever get an assassin bug down your shirt before? Did you know they bite? They hurt like hell and leave a huge welt. I can personally attest to that.
Great set!
 
I don't think 'taken with a macro lens' has any significance on if its a macro shot or not.
I've taken shots at 6 times life size with ordinary lenses (definitely macro, even if not much good) yet none of my 'macro' lenses reach lifesize unaided the primes typically reaching half life size (so don't meet the usual 1:1 definition of macro).

All the shots are excellent, certainly good enough to be grouped with macro in most places even if they aren't lifesize. I personally would also put shots like these here or in Nature & Wildlife. Then any debate on what constitutes macro is irrelevant.

FWIWI know of one group that is extremely fussy about their definition of macro - if a subject is more than 36mm across it will be rejected.
Thanks! The Sigma 105mm does 1:1 and my Tamron 18-400mm, while not an official macro lens, comes pretty close (400mm at 8 inches range is nothing to sneeze at) to what the Sigma produces. In any case, I agree that general or nature & wildlife is good in most cases, because those can encompass a macro shot.
 
Guess you found out why it’s called an assassin bug. Good photos by the way.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top