What constitutes a "macro photograph"?

[mikepalo]

<p>Ok I'm not entirely a beginner I prefer to consider myself simply an armature but I do have a beginner's question.</p>

<p>What constitutes Macro?</p>

<p>I know a macro <strong>lens</strong> shoots up close...it shoots at or around 1:1...it shoots withe a very shallow depth of field...but does all that make up a macro picture? Or can you shoot macro with a telephoto if you are shooting a small subject? Is the concept of macro the actual specs of the picture/lens? or is it the size of your subject? or is there something else I'm completely missing?</p>

<p>Just a question on a technicality. :)<br>

-Mike</p>

[seland]

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography</a></p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>Macro is landscapes. Micro is close up work. Most macro lenses should really have been named Micro as Nikon has done.</p>

[mikepalo]

<p><strong>Espen</strong><br>

I know what Wikipedia says and i do understand that definition but one thing I have learned being in college is a Wiki is never something to whole heatedly trust...hence ...I'm asking for photographers answers.</p>

<p><strong>Ronald</strong> <br /> You know as a biology major that is one thing that has always irked me. lol As u said Macro is BIG stuff ....<br /> Macro Fauna....Blue whale...<br /> Micro Fauna...Zooplankton...</p>

<p>BUT...namesakes aside....is it just that its close up work that makes it macro(micro) or can it be done with a telephoto from 10ft at a small subject?</p>

<p>edit: wow....not to go off topic but i just realized how much that sounds like a game of clue "with a telephoto from 10ft" vs "in the library with a wrench" ...LOL :P</p>

[josephbraun]

<p>macro/micro is the same thing.. for close up work. nikon uses the term micro.. everyone else uses the term macro.</p>

[bob_miller4]

<p>High magnification photos, as obtained with a real lab bench microscope qualify as micro. These typically start out at 50X magnification, and show very small features of the object.<br /> Photos at low magnification, life size, or a bit smaller than life size taken close up with a camera to show entire small objects (for example) are normally called macro.<br /> An example from work---Let's say I have an aircraft engine turbine blade that's a few inches long and I want to show the location of a surface coating defect. I would draw a circle around the defect and take a macro photo of the whole blade. But if I really wanted to document the structure of a defect in great detail, I'd have to look at a properly located and prepared cross-section of the blade through a metallurgical microscope and take a photo in the 50X-500X range.</p>

[Alan Marcus]

<p >About Macro Lenses:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The focal length engraved on the lens barrel is calculated based on the camera being focused on a far distant object (infinity) position. This distance is technically a measurement made from a point called the rear nodal to the focal plane. The rear nodal generally falls somewhere inside the lens barrel however in the case of a telephoto or other specialized lenses, it can fall outside the lens. A true telephoto has a barrel shorter than the engraved focal length due to the fact that the rear nodal falls more forward, maybe even in advance of the front element. This technique reduces the length of a telephoto that otherwise would be protracted. The focal plane is the surface of the film or digital chip. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Now as you aim and focus ot objects closer than infinity, the working focal length lengthens. This is true because the camera lens is designed to bend light rays inward. Light rays from distant objects enter the camera as parallel rays. Light rays from close by object enter as diverging rays. Diverging rays come to a focus further down stream. Thus the camera must be fitted with a mechanical means to move the lens forward to allow focusing on close objects. This mechanical adjustment consists of gears that rack the lens forward and backward allowing focus on objects of different distances.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Now the f/number engraved on the lens barrel is also based on the infinity position. As you focus on close by objects the f/number becomes invalided. This is true because at close distances the working focal length is elongated. At unity, 1:1 (life size) the working focal length is twice the engraved number. At unity the distance focal plane-to-rear nodal is 4x the engraved focal length. To focus, at unity, we must extend the lens forward using tubes or bellows. At unity the f/numbers are off by 2 f/stops i.e. engraved f/8 in actuality functioning at f/16. Additionally, the lens design is corrected for the infinity position. At unity the lens is compromised as to aberrations. Often when bellows or tubes are employed this lens will have better correction when inverted. Bellows or tubes often feature an inverting ring adapter.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Most cameras of an earlier period allowed close focusing until the f/number error reached 1/3 f/stop. Thus a mechanical block prevented focusing closer than maybe 20 inches (1/2 meter). The modern camera can allow close focusing because the built-in-light meter system triumphs over the f/number error.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The Macro to the rescue:</p>

<p >A macro is corrected for unity; it is compromised as to aberrations when focused at infinity. The macro features a mechanical linkage that opens the aperture up as you close focus keeping the f/numbers valid. </p>

[tommyinca]

<p>"What constitutes Macro (Lens) ?" <br />IMHO,<br />Most macrophotographer define it as lens with 1:1 (1X) to arround 40:1 (40X). 40X may sound a lot but if one think larger format view camera, it is still not too microscopic. Most high magnification macro lens are designed for 4 by 5 large format camera meaning 40X is still a bit more then 3mm wide.</p>

<p>Does it mean 1:8 to 1:1.01 close up capabilities not consider as macro?<br />If you use a 50mm prime lens as a base line for quality, most 50mm focus to 1:7. There are many macro lens in the 60s and 70s which were designed down to 1:2 (1/2X) magnification. You won't find too many photographers debating that they are not true macro lens. ie: 55mm f3.5 micro Nikkor, 100mm f4 Minolta and Canon macro. They may still debate the name micro verse macro but not the capabilities :-)</p>

<p>Macro lens also come in all focal lengths and sizes, from a Leitz Photar (12.5mm) to a 1000mm+ Questar macro. I think both are still very much in production.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Regardless of complaining about the fact that the name can arguably be said to be wrong*, the simple fact is that <em>macro</em> nowadays does mean what Tommy says, a lens that produces an image on the sensor plane that is the same size as the real world object (aka 1:1).<br>

Formerly, the term was also used to apply to lenses that would produce a half-size image (1:2), but that usage has mostly been abandoned in terms of real macro lenses. Early "Micro Nikkors" required an extension tube to go closer than 1:2.</p>

<p>Just to confuse everybody, almost all manufacturers of zoom lenses that are built with what should be called "close focus" call that feature <strong><em>macro</em> </strong> on the lens barrel. These zooms are not true macro lenses, by the purist definition. They are however, adequate for lots of close work such as flowers, small objects, and other such like things. When you want to photograph a bug or a lizard's eye, a "real" macro is called for.</p>

<p>_____________<br>

*But there are problems with using <em>micro</em> too since here you get into the realm of what is microphotography as opposed to photomicrography.....</p>

[mikepalo]

<p>ok maybe i miscommunicated what I was asking. Im not asking what constitutes a macro lens i know that already. Im asking what makes a macro photograph. Im asking can u take a macro photograph with a telephoto lens if ur photographing something small....for instance....this picture...would this be considered a macro photograph even though it was shot with 70-300 at 270mm<br /></p>

<p>edit: ??? the link didnt post.... here its a pic in my gallery here on photo.net<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/6603602</p>

[paddler4]

<p>I wouldn't worry about a definition for your last question. Yes, a telephoto racked all the way out (or nearly so) can produce images fairly close to those of a short macro lens. I started with the EF 50mm f/2.5 "compact macro", which is not really a true macro because it was limited to 1:2. I have shots from that and from my EF-S 55-250mm that are quite similar. I now use a "true" short macro, the EF-S 60mm f/2.8, and some of my bug shots with that are pretty similar to yours in magnification, for example, http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/photos/356381534_Mo5Mg-XL.jpg.</p>

<p>So, I suggest you not worry about the definition. if you like to take pictures of little critters, just decide what level of magnification you want for your stuff and look for equipment that will do it. If you want higher levels, e.g., seeing the patterns on a fly's eye, you will have to get a "true" macro lens or extension tubes.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Yes, to repeat, <strong>if the image is the same size or greater on the sensor as in real life, then the picture is a macro picture</strong> regardless of the lens it is taken with. It's the image size ratio to real size regardless--any lens that can achieve it is by definition a macro lens, whatever else it may be....<br /> I know of no 70-300mm lens that can achieve true macro without an extension tube or other apparatus. That's as I said already, sometimes labeled "macro" but is technically "close focus".</p>

<p> </p><div></div>