Macro vs Normal objective

[behindslr]

Hello, I have questions, I am making some texture for one of the games that I play. I want to make my own ultra graphic texture pack but, for now, I am using macro objective and my question is what is best macro 40mm Nikkor or normal 18-55mm objective. How to take good macro with nice looking without losing image quality.I convert picture and crop to 2048x2048

This is taken by 18=55mm normal objective

But this is take with macro


This is how to look like in the game

 

[behindslr]

I just want to say I need good details, and macro is for that but still learning, I need when I crop to see good details for something i will take.When i type in google macro texture photography its almost dreaming how people take texture.But me is something different.

 

[TCampbell]

Lighting has a lot to do with the ability to see textures. When the light source is close to the camera you wont really see “shadow” and that makes the brain think the subject is flat. When lighting comes from the side, you’ll get a shadow/highlight contrast and the texture pops and looks more three dimensional.

Apart from that, we tend to think of the focus distance from a lens as being a flat plane at some distance away from the front of the lens. In reality, it’s a bit curved ... which can mean focus starts to degrade near the edges of the field. Macro lenses typically try to correct for field “flatness” which improves sharpness in the corners. I am not familiar with that particular macro lens, but it would not surprise me if it turns out to have a well-corrected flat field.