Well I thought I knew what macro was, but I've started to doubt myself!
Is it a subjective definition, labelled thus if the photographer/viewer decides to call it macro, or is there a TRUE definition of macro.
I have seen many photos with the description or tagged as "macro" and others that have had comments made by others (e.g. excellent macro) and they're not the type of photos that I would have labelled macro, because they just look like good closeups, rather than 'extreme closeups' as I've always (albeit subjectively!) labelled as macros.
Here's how I've thought of macro (so close that it's more or less unrecognisable) -
An example of what some others would describe as macro (which I'd just describe as a closeup) -
I'm not criticizing anyone here, I'm just genuinely curious as to what macro REALLY means so that I can use the term appropriately! :)
A macro lens is, technically, anything which shoots stuff 1:1 or bigger, I believe.
As far as I'm (and most others, I'm sure) concerned, your original definition's correct, though, in common parlance. It's any shot of something larger than it actually is.
Technically, it's when the subject is reproduced on a scale of 1:1 or greater on the film or sensor but it's used (or misused ;) ) to describe a range of scales from close up to true macro. A true macro lens will reproduce at 1:1 or greater and is usually considered to be a specialised lens although they are also excellent for portraiture or general use. There's a picture of a hoverfly on my 365 that's a true macro taken with a Canon 100mm f2.8L
Good ants @meggageg - I tried doing that on the patio a few weeks ago...but got photos of primary school quality!! They wouldn't stay still enough for long enough!
@lluniau I would tend to agree with your two examples, and it's also what I found on other photo sites. Myself, I use macro and close-up according to the same criteria as yours, although I don't really know the limit between them.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
or just getting the fine details that we normally wouldn't notice.
As far as I'm (and most others, I'm sure) concerned, your original definition's correct, though, in common parlance. It's any shot of something larger than it actually is.
Hope this helps!
Good ants @meggageg - I tried doing that on the patio a few weeks ago...but got photos of primary school quality!! They wouldn't stay still enough for long enough!
Show a mixture of both what you described :o)
Oh yes! There's an enormous one in Norwich, where we live - just outside the city.