What is technically considered macro ?

[Bram]

Hello Macro lovers,

I'm just curious as to what exactly is considered macro, I currently have some photos of water drops, I don't know if that's considered macro or not, I will definately post the photos when I get home from work. Just looking for some clarification.

Thanks!

 

[Josh66]

Most people would consider macro to be 1:1 or greater. (Or at least close to 1:1.)

That means that the image on the film/sensor is life size.

Anything less than 1:1 (1:2, for example) would usually be considered 'close-up'.

 

[Bram]

So I guess the photos I got of the water drops would be considered close up then.

 

[Josh66]

Probably... I wouldn't lose any sleep over it though.

If it's close to 1:1, I usually would still consider it macro. I mean, if it's not obvious as hell that it's not 1:1, that's close enough to be 'macro' in my book.

 

[Robin Usagani]

They even put Macro marking on my Sigma only because the minimum focus distance is closer than most lenses in it's class. It cant even do 1:1.

 

[Overread]

Macro on zoom lenses is more of a marketing move than anything else and some of the lenses with that can't get even to 1:2 (half life size).

Generally its as said above - true macro is a 1:1 ratio or greater - in other words what you get through a true macro lens when focused at its closest focusing point.


However the water muddies a little as many things like flowers and stuff between 1:1 and 1:2 magnifications also gets thrown into the macro/closeup groupings. It just depends how strict the group you are with defines macro - some keep to the hard rule whilst others are a little more liberal - also subject matter can affect the acceptance as well - eg butterfly and dragonfly shots are often said to be macro when a full bodied shot of most is far too big for a 1:1 magnification.

 

[Bram]

Thank you so much guys definately cleared the air there. I will definately post my photos just to see what you think, they were my first attempt at water drops so if they're fail, dont C&C too harsh

 

[Josh66]

also subject matter can affect the acceptance as well - eg butterfly and dragonfly shots are often said to be macro when a full bodied shot of most is far too big for a 1:1 magnification.

That's true - I hadn't really considered that.

A dragonfly or butterfly is obviously bigger than the sensor, so it would be impossible to get a full-body shot at 1:1. I still think of it as macro though...

 

[Arkanjel Imaging]

While I generally agree with the 1:1 definition I also group photos taken from less than 1' in the same catagory.

 

[Bram]

Oh alright cool thanks alot for all the info guys definately helping me here.

 

[Overread]

also subject matter can affect the acceptance as well - eg butterfly and dragonfly shots are often said to be macro when a full bodied shot of most is far too big for a 1:1 magnification.

That's true - I hadn't really considered that.

A dragonfly or butterfly is obviously bigger than the sensor, so it would be impossible to get a full-body shot at 1:1. I still think of it as macro though...

Unless of course we enlarge the actual sensor size itself - I wonder how big a large format sensor is?