Discussion in 'Macro' started by michaellinder, May 3, 2021.
Canon PowerShot SX220 HS
Taken in Elk Grove, CA, 26 December 2018 @ 11:02 AM
Nikon D750 1/2500 sec, f/13, ISO 640 (Auto) Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro VC USD F017N Range: 0.56 meters
This a a two-for image. If you look at the circled area (full-size), you will see a small green spider. Perhaps I should also post under "Insects"? I did not notice the spider until I processed the image at 1:1 in Lightroom. Nice lens the Tamron.
What qualifies as macro in this forum, is it just a photo taken with a lens that has macro written on it?
GC, is your question intended to be satirical?
Frankly, one of those curious arguments which I sidestep by not labeling a photo as anything in particular. Here is a good cut at the description of a macro.
The classic definition of macro photography is that the image projected onto the digital sensor (or film plane) should be the same size as the subject. With a 1:1 ratio, a DSLR with a full-frame chip should be able to produce life-size magnification and focus on an area as small as 24x36mm. Lens Reviews
Michael, it was more rhetorical than satirical. But as you have answered I do have a problem with some of the posts in the "Macro Forum".
The definition supplied by Sandy is the usual one referenced , but expecting 1:1 is may be a step to far. My most used lens for close-ups is only 1:2, surely some attempt at close focus is needed or what's the point.
Interestingly, JDL’s photo is 130 times the size of JDM’s (13MB v 100 KB) but the resolution looks the same on PN.
Smugmug changed the way they link photos and I haven't done so for a while. I think I have it now, but sorry for the huge image
Having trouble uploading file.
The largest flower is about 1/16th inch across.
Didn't notice the eggs until I looked through the viewfinder.
Canon T5, Canon 100mm f2.8 USM Macro Lens
Am I the only one who thinks flowers look kinda messed-up when you start to get really close to them?
Separate names with a comma.