Scroll down to see how small this really is.

Can someone tell me if technically this can be considered a macro

shot? We saw several of these on the sidewalks at the Golden Gate

Bridge....you literally had to watch where you stepped. People were

calling them slugs, but I'm not so sure. Sorry, I guess I'm not 'up'

on my insect classification! I appreciate your time. Thanks!

Very interesting study and "model". This image shows its own aesthetics IMO because of its unusual object and how it was captured (have never seen such a beautifully colored snail before). Very well done, Christal. 6. BR / Volker

It's nice to 'see a new face'.  Thanks for your comment....much appreciated.  You called this a snail, which is what I also thought it was.  I just looked up 'snail' on Wikipedia, and this is what it said about snails vs. slugs.    We did see some of these creatures without a shell, so they must molt at some point.

Snail is a common name for almost all members of the molluscan class Gastropoda that have coiled shells in the adult stage. When the word is used in a general sense, it includes sea snails, land snails and freshwater snails. Otherwise snail-like creatures that lack a shell (or have only a very small one) are called slugs.

Christal... Hmmm, not sure, but with a shell I'd say a snail.  I've never heard of a slug with a shell (but that's not saying much) :-)... Anyway, a good shot... Mike

I am fairly sure we are looking at a specimen of Cantareus aspersa, the Brown Garden Snail.  They have been the bane of California for some 100 years, since their arrival from Europe as a food delicacy (Can you say escargot?).  Also they are not an insect, but a mollusk, just like clams, oysters, and squid.

You would have to tell me if this is a macro or not?  By definition, is this image (before any cropping) of the snail the same size or larger than it was in real life?  Or to rephrase, was this particular snail about 2 1/2 inches long or less?  If yes to either question, I would call it a Macro. 

Good capture.  Best Regards...

-Dave

The image of the snail IS larger than it was in real life, and by all means it was less than 2 and 1/2 inches long.  For the sake of scale, I took a picture of my husband when he was taking a picture of it.  He also got a much less flattering picture of me plastered to the ground when I was taking it.  :-)  Thanks for your informed comment, and I'll be getting over to check out your work soon. 

This is a nice shot. Based on the above comments it does seem like a macro shot.

The colors and details on this little fellow are very nice and sharp. I also like the composition of the image.

As a bonus I really like the picture you took of your husband. When one look at the whole image it looks like a tourist is taking a silly picture and now when looking at the end result one can tell it was indeed a great one.

Regards

Alex

Wow, after seeing the picture of hubby it gives this image a lot more credit! This really is a little guy and now we have a sense of scale to attach to it.  Well done, the colors and clarity are quite amazing, I think you used a perfect DoF too.

Warmest regards, Pamela

Excellent shot of this little fellow Christal! Love the colors in the shell and the detail in it's body. Nice macro work!

All the best,
Neil

Sometimes life isn't fair.....my husband got a better shot of this than I did with his little Canon G11 camera.  And I had to work a lot harder for mine because I actually have to look through the viewfinder of my 40D, which means I was splayed on the ground with my rear end up in the air.....not a pretty sight!  :-)  What photographers won't do for a shot!  And Alex, what you said is so true....I'm sure people thought we were actually crazy.  We did get some very strange looks.  Thank you all for appreciating my efforts.  :-)

Hello Christal, thanks for your warm welcome and  infos - I think it is actually a snail, because a snail - according to what I've learnt / checked - cannot release or "throw away" its shell during its lifetime. A slug does not have a shell per se / at all since its birth  because it is another kind of snail "species" / a strikingly mutated snail which has developed from original snails (i.e., originally also equipped with shells) throughout the evolution. Hence, the other "snail" (without a shell) you have observed must have been most probably a slug (not a snail which could have lost its shell during its lifetime). Best regards, Volker

Hi Christal !!  I really hope you don't delete this...  I haven't seen a snail around my place like this at all.. very different markings on the shell. Thicker !  It's amazing how fast they can go when your trying to take their picture lol..  very nice!!!  and thank you for your nice comment.

Lotta info to process here...Is it a snail or a slug?  Is it a macro or not?  Looked up macro on wikipedia; big mistake.  I wasn't sure before, but now I'm sure I don't understand what it is.  Pretty sure its a snail though.  Good detail on the snail and extra credit for explanations and definations.

You have captured it very well. It is sharp, I like the light and it is moving diagonally in the frame. DOF is effective. Well done, Regards, ifti.

This one is very interesting with this colors,unefortunately this year on my area snails did a lot of trouble in my garden they eaten almost all flowers.I prefere only in photo session,my best regards.

I often find myself to be "plastered on the ground" for taking photographs. I sometimes get wet or dirty but I usually get my shot.

This is the best photograph of a small snail I've seen. We don't see many snails in the Seattle area but we do have some slugs of unusually large sizes.

 I think it might fall a little short of a "real" macro, which most sources define as 1:1 on the sensor, not the image on screen or print. I'm not sure what size your sensor is, but I'm guessing it's a little smaller than the snail making this a little short of 1:1. Not that it matters.

And as to why your husbands P&S had an easier time of it. They have smaller sensors so they don't have to magnify the image as much to fill the sensor. With less magnification you get more depth of field so it's easier to get everything in focus.

I wish I understand the technical side of cameras.....sensors and all of that.  I don't, but I intend to learn.  :-)   Thanks for digging to find this, and I appreciate your opinion on the macro issue.  I agree with you.....and there are some amazing extreme macro shots here on PN.