i have been reading abit about close up and macro photography lately
and was thinking maybe the photo galleries should be modified to highlight the distinction between the two types of photos.
a close up photo fits the retio of 1:10 - 1:1 as far as the actual size of the subject compared to photos representation of the subject.
a close up shot - the leaf is almost exactly this size
a macro photo on the other hand fits the ratio of 1:1 or greater as far as the actual subject size to the photos representation of the subject.
a true macro shot - the leaf is only about 1/3 this size
i dont know how others feel about this, but it makes sense to separate them to me....
So if I shot a plasma lamp, and the inner ball is 2-3 cm but on the shot it looks 4-5 cm (without enlarging), that's macro?
No. A true macro is something where the exposed image on the film (or in the case of digital, the imaging sensor) is the same size or larger as "real life". So a "1:1 macro" of a U.S. penny would measure 3/4" of an inch across on a 35mm negative (the same size as the penny). Techhically, anything less is a "close up", but a lot of people use "macro" and "close-up" interchangebly.
Your manual will have the image sensor dimensions in the specs somewhere. It is typically quite small -- about 2/3 inch -- until you start getting into dSLR-type cameras.
If I take any picture and print a 16x20 it will be greater than 1:1. I think at this point, the guideline should be displayed size at 100% of current screen resolution.
If you're looking a photo of a penny, put a penny up to the screen. If the one on the screen is bigger than the physical penny, I'd call it a macro.
I think the sensor size issue is somewhat a smokescreen here -- I want to judge it by the way it's presented, not the equipment or technique used to create it.
well for the avacado leaf photo
off the camera is 42x29inches i think ( huge anyhow )
and at that size its much larger than real life 15 times or so
with film you ar always enlarging the image from a negative so its a different beast - was just a thought because i noticed some of the macro shots were'nt really all that close up to the subject.
and i had the article in my head from yesterday
its from december 2003 photogrpahic magazine
Even before the rise of digital, the 1:1 criteia for macro was pretty fuzzy. 1:1 is pretty high magnification on 35mm, and it's very high for a small-sensor camera. The key is that the magnification (based on some constant print or viewing size) varies quite a bit depending on the sensor size.
IMHO this makes the 1:1 criteria much less useful. I'm in the camp of "leave it the way it is."
It sounds like you want to take the Macro gallery and divide it into separate Macro and Close-Up galleries. Maybe you should post two or three more examples of ones currently in the Macro gallery and explain why it's important, or how it will help DPC submitters and visitors, that they be moved to a new Close-Up gallery. I think it's clear that the dividing line between the two will be substantially subjective.
if the difference is so fuzzy sobeit
but drawing a line is always possible, and may help folks stop using the term interchangably, seeing as there is a distinction in photographic details...
