technological correctness? Forum definition of <i>macro</i>

<p>David, you're right, concision is a virtue. </p>

<p>That said, I'm tired of one and two sentence answers to apparently simple questions that need a book-length answer. I'm also tired of short apparently authoritative answers that are wrong. And I'm sick of answers to "what should I get?" questions that say "get what I have" without consideration of the original posters' goals and constraints.</p>

<p>Sorry, I come by my grumpiness honestly.</p>

<p>and, what's more,<br>

"Get off my lawn!"</p>

<div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>That said, I'm tired of one and two sentence answers to apparently simple questions that need a book-length answer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, you mean like these types of exchanges?... http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3740</p>

<p>There's a bunch of them like that. No clue what equipment used or whether they cropped the image using a high/low resolution small or large sensor.</p>

<p>I didn't spend a lot of time searching that site so the odds of me coming across a first answer to a 2007 thread saying they just don't have their heart into shooting that close up gives an indication how lively that site is.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My depressing thought is that this forum and the landscape one will largely cannibalize the Nature forum, such as it is. </p>

<p>Robin,<br>

Fret not, cheer up. There are really depressing things out there to get depressed over.<br>

I'm not worried about Nature suffering from the addition of other forums. I see them as complimentary rather than in competition. </p>

<p>There are macro photographers who don't use that skill set in nature or on nature based subjects. It's good to have a central place to meet on a subject rather than searching among camera make forums to find people who are photographing things like old watch parts, jewelry settings, or really funky stuff like cottage cheese curds.</p>

<p>A cityscape will not work in the Nature forum, but it has a home in Landscape. There will be overlap, but that's ok. There's room for all of it, and participation in the new forums will probably wax and wane as it does in any other forum.</p>

<p>The larger concern is overall site decline. I don't know if new forums will necessarily help, but I don't think they will hurt.</p>

<p>I'm late to the discussion, but if any topic allows nits to be picked then surely macro is it ;)</p>

<p>Matt's definition is obviously more useful, but my own rule of thumb is that macro stands mostly for magnifications between 1:2 and 1:1. No idea whether I (mis)read that in classic 35mm era macro books like John Shaw's "Closeups in Nature" or Lester Lefkowitz' "Manual of Close-Up Photography". All the more since both avoided the word macro altogether in their book titles.</p>

<p>But it probably has something to with the time period and the fact that many 35mm to medium format sized "macro" primes in those days reached magnifications of 1:2 only, unless you added a more or less dedicated tube/converter/diopter or such.</p>

<p>Does it really matter? I don't think so, Matt's approach will be perfectly fine and some of us will make the occasional grumpy comment no matter what definition gets the official nod.</p>

<p>Would I for one mind if anyone posted shots taken with a zoom that gets only to 1:3, or asked questions about the use of a "true" macro prime for portraiture or landscapes, or posted their views on the performance of lenses designed to exceed 1:1 without requiring accessories? Not at all, that's what the card-carrying PN referees aka moderators are for. And are questions or shots posted in this forum going to undercut others such as the Nature forum? I doubt it very much, not least because that forum has its own rules, for example the weekly Monday in Nature thread has a pretty consistently enforced rule against shots with manmade objects in the frame.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I found an interesting page discussing the NIKON MICRO NIKKOR, and it's naming.<br>

http://nikkor.com/story/0025/index.html<br>

Summary.<br>

The classical definition of MACROphotography is photography of a subject where the image is recorded on film in the same or larger than actual size. IOW magnification.<br>

MICROphotography was associated with so-called duplication or reduction.<br>

Micro as in microfilm was reduction of the size of the object on the film. <br>

Hence the Micro Nikkor.</p>

<p>David<br /> <br />but the criterion for "macro" or "micro" is, I contend, the nature of the optical system used.<br /><br />I always believed that the optical layout of a reverse mounted lens closely resembled the optical layout of a true “macro” lens. Or that reversing a lens places it in macro mode. But then I always found it more realistic to apply the word “macro” the final image regardless of which lenses were used. There are many ways to skin a cat but in the end you still have a cat.<br /><br /></p>

<p>I like Matt's definition. It fits with my own practical application. Merriam-Webster's dictionary provides a useful definition: "The making of photographs in which the object is either un-magnified or slightly magnified up to a limit often of about 10 diameters." This seems like a useful working definition that sets rational boundaries. If we want to pick nits about nomenclature, perhaps we should rename this the "close-up and macro-photography" forum. Or, we can get over it and just enjoy one another's creative efforts and shared technical knowledge.</p>

I would say that "macro" covers 1:2 to about 2:1 +/-. Anything greater than 2:1 is really microphotography