Re: OT: When is macro macro?
On Apr 29, 2007, at 11:10 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Macro is in the 1:2 to 1:1 range. Your Tamron does 1:2 (half life- size) without the dedicated extension tube. Microphotography is greater than 1:1 magnification. But that generally requires bellows or a reverse mounted lens on a macro lens rather than just a macro lens. Technically speaking, microphotography is making tiny photographs. Photomicrography is what you are talking about. Two very different things. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: When is macro macro?
Macro- merely means large. So any image that is larger than normal is a macrophotograph. That said, usually people consider the macro range to be 1/5 to 5 times actual size. Some pedantic types only consider 1:1 to be macro. And to most advertising types it means a lens that is closer focusing than normal (1 meter for a 50mm). In other words it is a macrophoto if you call it that. -graywolf Jens Bladt wrote: I have photographed my Stanley measuring device with a Pentax K10D and a Tamron SP 2.5/90mm lens - at closest possible focusing distance; 0.39 m. Is this macro? http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/477746425/ Maybe not. My sensor is 23.5mm. This image covers appr. 47mm. This means it's almost accurately half natural size - 50% on the sensor. Isn't macro photography supposed to be enlarging the subject? On a computer screen my 3872 pixel would look like 1366 mm. That's an enlarement of appr. 2900% (almost 30 times). But enlarging the copies (negs) is not really macro, is it? Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/779 - Release Date: 04/28/2007 15:32 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: When is macro macro?
On Apr 30, 2007, at 11:56 AM, graywolf wrote: Macro- merely means large. So any image that is larger than normal is a macrophotograph. That said, usually people consider the macro range to be 1/5 to 5 times actual size. Some pedantic types only consider 1:1 to be macro. And to most advertising types it means a lens that is closer focusing than normal (1 meter for a 50mm). In other words it is a macrophoto if you call it that. You need to understand distinctions in technical language. Macro photography is not the same as macrophotography. A photo taken at close to 1:1 is a photomacrograph, not a macrophotograph. A macrophotograph is a very large print. That's technical language. In common parlance the terms are often all jumbled up. Bob (Who, at 250 pounds, is a macrophotographer) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: When is macro macro?
The term macro is arbitrary, and in many ways subjective. A 1:4 shot of a butterfly that fills the whole frame will almost always be called a macro. But a 1:4 shot of a little ant that is lost in the frame, would usually not be called a macro - even though it is the same magnification. So - I think of a macro as something small magnified till it becomes the primary object in/ subject of the composition. I used to use the term micro to describe shots at greater than 2x magnification, but that seemed to imply that they were shot through a microscope (something I haven't gotten around to doing yet.) So after a brief period of calling snow crystal shots (taken at 5x - 10x life sized) micro photos I went back to using macro for the sake of clarity. (And as someone pointed out - a micro photo is a really tiny photo - so my terminology was way off..) - MCC PS: I'd consider your photo of the tape measure to be a macro photo. Jens Bladt wrote: I have photographed my Stanley measuring device with a Pentax K10D and a Tamron SP 2.5/90mm lens - at closest possible focusing distance; 0.39 m. Is this macro? http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/477746425/ Maybe not. My sensor is 23.5mm. This image covers appr. 47mm. This means it's almost accurately half natural size - 50% on the sensor. Isn't macro photography supposed to be enlarging the subject? On a computer screen my 3872 pixel would look like 1366 mm. That's an enlarement of appr. 2900% (almost 30 times). But enlarging the copies (negs) is not really macro, is it? Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, Michigan www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
OT: When is macro macro?
I have photographed my Stanley measuring device with a Pentax K10D and a Tamron SP 2.5/90mm lens - at closest possible focusing distance; 0.39 m. Is this macro? http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/477746425/ Maybe not. My sensor is 23.5mm. This image covers appr. 47mm. This means it's almost accurately half natural size - 50% on the sensor. Isn't macro photography supposed to be enlarging the subject? On a computer screen my 3872 pixel would look like 1366 mm. That's an enlarement of appr. 2900% (almost 30 times). But enlarging the copies (negs) is not really macro, is it? Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/779 - Release Date: 04/28/2007 15:32 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: When is macro macro?
Macro is in the 1:2 to 1:1 range. Your Tamron does 1:2 (half life-size) without the dedicated extension tube. Microphotography is greater than 1:1 magnification. But that generally requires bellows or a reverse mounted lens on a macro lens rather than just a macro lens. -Adam Jens Bladt wrote: I have photographed my Stanley measuring device with a Pentax K10D and a Tamron SP 2.5/90mm lens - at closest possible focusing distance; 0.39 m. Is this macro? http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/477746425/ Maybe not. My sensor is 23.5mm. This image covers appr. 47mm. This means it's almost accurately half natural size - 50% on the sensor. Isn't macro photography supposed to be enlarging the subject? On a computer screen my 3872 pixel would look like 1366 mm. That's an enlarement of appr. 2900% (almost 30 times). But enlarging the copies (negs) is not really macro, is it? Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/779 - Release Date: 04/28/2007 15:32 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: When is macro macro?
Macro is arbitrary. It's a photograph. Does it matter what you call it? Paul On Apr 29, 2007, at 11:05 PM, Jens Bladt wrote: I have photographed my Stanley measuring device with a Pentax K10D and a Tamron SP 2.5/90mm lens - at closest possible focusing distance; 0.39 m. Is this macro? http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/477746425/ Maybe not. My sensor is 23.5mm. This image covers appr. 47mm. This means it's almost accurately half natural size - 50% on the sensor. Isn't macro photography supposed to be enlarging the subject? On a computer screen my 3872 pixel would look like 1366 mm. That's an enlarement of appr. 2900% (almost 30 times). But enlarging the copies (negs) is not really macro, is it? Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/779 - Release Date: 04/28/2007 15:32 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: When is macro macro?
It's reasonable to consider reproduction ratios in approximately the 1:4 to 2:1 range as macro despite more specific definitions for photomacography and microphotography. Most lenses marked as Macro achieve 1:4 to 1:2 magnification ratio without additional equipment. Some go to 1:1. For instance, the smc Pentax-A 50mm f/2.8 Macro is a superb performer and achieves infinity to 1:2 magnification without additional extension. Godfrey On Apr 29, 2007, at 8:10 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Macro is in the 1:2 to 1:1 range. Your Tamron does 1:2 (half life- size) without the dedicated extension tube. Microphotography is greater than 1:1 magnification. But that generally requires bellows or a reverse mounted lens on a macro lens rather than just a macro lens. -Adam Jens Bladt wrote: I have photographed my Stanley measuring device with a Pentax K10D and a Tamron SP 2.5/90mm lens - at closest possible focusing distance; 0.39 m. Is this macro? http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/477746425/ Maybe not. My sensor is 23.5mm. This image covers appr. 47mm. This means it's almost accurately half natural size - 50% on the sensor. Isn't macro photography supposed to be enlarging the subject? On a computer screen my 3872 pixel would look like 1366 mm. That's an enlarement of appr. 2900% (almost 30 times). But enlarging the copies (negs) is not really macro, is it? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: When is macro macro?
You say Microphotography is greater than 1:1 magnification... Unless you are shooting a Nikon. IIRC, what the rest of the world calls macro, Nikon calls micro. Like Paul says, it doesn't matter what you call it. Macro or micro is anything shot very close to the subject using close-up filters, extension tubes, bellows, or special purpose close-focus lenses. Many zoom lenses used to claim a macro capability even though they couldn't achieve more than 1:3.5 or so. IMHO, the important thing with macro is not the precise ratio of image-size-on-sensor to actual object size; rather, it is about isolating a very narrow aspect of the environment using a good combination of close-focus and appropriate DOF. It is about art, not about science and ratios and image size. Adam's definition in terms of 1:2 to 1:1 ratios is generally accepted usage of the macro term, but it is a general convenient rule-of-thumb, not a hard and fast rule. stan On Apr 29, 2007, at 10:10 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Macro is in the 1:2 to 1:1 range. Your Tamron does 1:2 (half life- size) without the dedicated extension tube. Microphotography is greater than 1:1 magnification. But that generally requires bellows or a reverse mounted lens on a macro lens rather than just a macro lens. -Adam Jens Bladt wrote: I have photographed my Stanley measuring device with a Pentax K10D and a Tamron SP 2.5/90mm lens - at closest possible focusing distance; 0.39 m. Is this macro? http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/477746425/ Maybe not. My sensor is 23.5mm. This image covers appr. 47mm. This means it's almost accurately half natural size - 50% on the sensor. Isn't macro photography supposed to be enlarging the subject? On a computer screen my 3872 pixel would look like 1366 mm. That's an enlarement of appr. 2900% (almost 30 times). But enlarging the copies (negs) is not really macro, is it? Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/779 - Release Date: 04/28/2007 15:32 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
