what is a macro in photographic terms

BillN_33

BillN_33

Suspended / Banned
Messages
13,952
Name
Bill
Edit My Images
No
Just found the following description from National Geographic

"Macro photography is photography magnified. It is generally recognized as “macro” when you are increasing the size of an object in your picture from about half life-size, as represented on the image sensor, to five times life-size"

still not sure, would be great if you could give your opinions

also the 1:1 etc., settings in LR ……… do they mean anything in macro terms?

I have just bought a "Macro" lens …….. when does the image taken become a macro image rather than just a close up …….. and can "macros" only be taken using macros lens

Is it that a macro lens will produce a "life" sized image, i.e. a 1:1 image, when used at it's closest focusing distance …… would that be the definition of a macro lens

Seems all very confusing to me
 
Last edited:
As far as I know, macro is defined as 1:1 or greater.

There are a number of ways to achieve 1:1, such as reversed lens, extension tubes etc, but a macro lens is probably easiest.
 
so basically a true macro lens must have the ability to close focus so that a life sized image, (or maybe greater than life sized), can be represented on the digital or film medium

So macro shots are only macro shots if the image taken is as big as or smaller than the FX sensor or 36mm x 24mm film - (excluding the larger formats)
 
Last edited:
Yes!!
 
OK I thought it's this scale.

1:1 to 10:1 is macro
10:1 to above is micro (not the Nikon terminology)
1:10 to 1:1 is considered closeup.

1:1 in LR is just image scaled to 100% so the actual size of the image.

2:1 is essentially 200% in any other software. Or 2x image size

1:1 in a lens refers to the scene width. Eg 1mm will be 1mm as seen on sensor. So if your sensor is 22mm then scene width will be 22mm at closest focus point.
 
Last edited:
I was always confused by this. I fully understand the term macro in photography but in my physics lessons macro meant large. Strange.

edit: also in other areas - macro-economics, macro-trends etc all mean on the larger scale.
 
Last edited:
Tintin124 said:
OK I thought it's this scale.

1:1 to 10:1 is macro
10:1 to above is micro (not the Nikon terminology)
1:10 to 1:1 is considered closeup.
Click to expand...

Thanks Bryn ……...¿Qué? - I am having a Manuel moment

so anything from life size to a 10 times magnification is a "macro"

anything below life size up to a tenth of life sized is a "close up"
 
BillN_33 said:
Thanks Bryn ……...¿Qué? - I am having a Manuel moment

so anything from life size to a 10 times magnification is a "macro"

anything below life size up to a tenth of life sized is a "close up"
Click to expand...

Nail on head. I have update original post from me to answer some of your other questions.
 
Nawty said:
I was always confused by this. I fully understand the term macro in photography but in my physics lessons macro meant large. Strange.

edit: also in other areas - macro-economics, macro-trends etc all mean on the larger scale.
Click to expand...

Thats what macro means here... on a scale of life size to 10x life size so larger than life. Eg 1mm object would be 10mm so infact larger than it actually is.
 
so if you take the image correctly as a macro - you can then enlarge it in post processing to present on the screen or in print
 
Nawty said:
I was always confused by this. I fully understand the term macro in photography but in my physics lessons macro meant large. Strange.

edit: also in other areas - macro-economics, macro-trends etc all mean on the larger scale.
Click to expand...
macro does mean large. its a large magnification. hth mike.
 
Tintin124 said:
Thats what macro means here... on a scale of life size to 10x life size so larger than life. Eg 1mm object would be 10mm so infact larger than it actually is.
Click to expand...

And when SCUBA diving they always talk about hunting for macro-life, or the small stuff. Just seems a little counter-intuative :thinking:
 
Nawty said:
And when SCUBA diving they always talk about hunting for macro-life, or the small stuff. Just seems a little counter-intuative :thinking:
Click to expand...

Do you mean micro organisms? Or micro ecosystems neither of those terms are macro. But anyhow macro is making small things look larger.

BillN_33 said:
so if you take the image correctly as a macro - you can then enlarge it in post processing to present on the screen or in print
Click to expand...

This will depend on your camera... For instance mine is 15mp so 4752px x 3168px so the image will fill that many pixels on a monitor. So take a 1600 x 900 screen you can see my image would fit on 3 of them at 100%.
 
Tintin124 said:
Do you mean micro organisms? Or micro ecosystems neither of those terms are macro. But anyhow macro is making small things look larger
Click to expand...


Yar, they mean micro (shrimps, spiders, tiny fish etc) but the term, even in the books, is macro.
 
There is no formal definition of macro. Almost all macro lenses go down to 1:1 max, but camera format has a big effect on what that actually means in terms of what you get in the frame. My own definition, if it fits in the palm of your hand, it's close-up; if it fits on the end of your finger, it's macro. At least that works with all formats.
 
Strictly speaking, photographic macro is where the image projected onto the recording medium is at 1:1 or larger. However, close up is probably now a better definition since the line has blurred so much over the years. Basically, if you can count the hairs on a fly's arse, it's macro!
 
HoppyUK said:
My own definition, if it fits in the palm of your hand, it's close-up; if it fits on the end of your finger, it's macro. At least that works with all formats.
Click to expand...

Surely that only works on small digital formats, not all formats?

In large format photography, such as 8x10 film, 1:1 macro can be a tight head and shoulders portrait.
 
Last edited:
Tthe film format or sensor size is irrelevant to the definition. If the subject is focused at the film or sensor at full size or larger, it is macro.


Steve.
 
Nod said:
Strictly speaking, photographic macro is where the image projected onto the recording medium is at 1:1 or larger. However, close up is probably now a better definition since the line has blurred so much over the years. Basically, if you can count the hairs on a fly's arse, it's macro!
Click to expand...

There is no 'strict' definition of macro, though we all know it when we see it. Hence my rule of thumb suggestion based more on subject size than technical image size.

skysh4rk said:
Surely that only works on small digital formats, not all formats?

In large format photography, such as 8x10 film, 1:1 macro can be a tight head and shoulders portrait.
Click to expand...

No, that's the point, defining macro based on subject size rather than image size works for all formats.

On the other hand, macro photography doesn't apply to large format, as it's simply impractical. You would need a bellows extension measured in feet, and exposures would run into minutes.

Steve Smith said:
Tthe film format or sensor size is irrelevant to the definition. If the subject is focused at the film or sensor at full size or larger, it is macro.

Steve.
Click to expand...

Format is irrelevant to any definition applied to magnification ratios, eg 1:1, but in practise what matters is what you actually get in the frame. For example, at 1:1 a large bumble bee would fill the whole image on full-frame, but on APS-C you'd only get half of it in the picture, and on M4/3, only a quarter of the whole bee. Or to put that another way, compared to 1:1 on full-frame, on APS-C you get the same frame-filling image at 1:1.5 magnification ratio, or 1:2 on M4/3.

Or yet another way, macro lenses for APS-C with shorter focal lengths (eg Canon EF-S 60/2.8, Tamron 60/2) can produce the same 'frame filling' images at the same working distances as 100mm macros on FF. This where magnification ratios like the '1:1 = macro' thing breaks down.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Format is irrelevant to any definition applied to magnification ratios, eg 1:1, but in practise what matters is what you actually get in the frame. For example, at 1:1 a large bumble bee would fill the whole image on full-frame, but on APS-C you'd only get half of it in the picture, and on M4/3, only a quarter of the whole bee. Or to put that another way, compared to 1:1 on full-frame, on APS-C you get the same frame-filling image at 1:1.5 magnification ratio, or 1:2 on M4/3.
Click to expand...

Or go the other way - a 1:1 image of a bumble bee on a piece of 8x10" film isn't very impressive.

I disagree with your statement that there isn't a strict definition of macro. I think there is - but it isn't always a particularly useful one when applied in the strict sense.

A better definition would be a size which fills the full frame.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Or go the other way - a 1:1 image of a bumble bee on a piece of 8x10" film isn't very impressive.

I disagree with your statement that there isn't a strict definition of macro. I think there is - but it isn't always a particularly useful one when applied in the strict sense.
Click to expand...

Where is this definition, and what is it? There is certainly nothing universally agreed (and hence this thread I guess) and lenses claiming macro capability have max magnification ratios ranging from 1:3 (one third life-size) to 5:1 (5x life-size).

A better definition would be a size which fills the full frame.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Yes. In other words, based on subject size :)
 
HoppyUK said:
Where is this definition
Click to expand...

In the public domain. Most photographers, if asked, will say that macro means 1:1 or larger at the film or sensor. It is so common that there must be some substance to it.


Steve.
 
Always been 1:1 recording (or greater) onto whatever film or sensor to me.
 
Steve Smith said:
Most photographers, if asked, will say that macro means 1:1 or larger at the film or sensor. It is so common that there must be some substance to it.
Click to expand...
Most equipment manufacturers, if asked, will say that macro means roughly 1:3 or larger at the film or sensor. It is so common that there must be some substance to it.
 
HoppyUK said:
There is no formal definition of macro. Almost all macro lenses go down to 1:1 max, but camera format has a big effect on what that actually means in terms of what you get in the frame. My own definition, if it fits in the palm of your hand, it's close-up; if it fits on the end of your finger, it's macro. At least that works with all formats.
Click to expand...

Macro is defined as 1:1 or greater. This is taught in colleges, university's and defined by the lens manufactures themselves. Anything under 1:1 is not true macro. There are several options in Achieving thus including bellows and extension tubes.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Macro is defined as 1:1 or greater. This is ... defined by the lens manufactures themselves.
Click to expand...
No it isn't.

Why does my Canon 24-70mm f/4 say "MACRO" on the side of it?

Why do the Sigma 17-70mm and 18-200mm lenses have "MACRO" in their names?

Why does a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 have "MACRO" in its name?

Why does the Nikon 28-105mm have a "MACRO" focusing mode?

Lens manufacturers use the term to mean whatever they want it to mean.
 
StewartR said:
Why does my Canon 24-70mm f/4 say "MACRO" on the side of it?

Why do the Sigma 17-70mm and 18-200mm lenses have "MACRO" in their names?

Why does a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 have "MACRO" in its name?

Why does the Nikon 28-105mm have a "MACRO" focusing mode?
Click to expand...

Yes it is.

The text on your lenses is marketing and bears no resemblance to reality.

StewartR said:
Lens manufacturers use the term to mean whatever they want it to mean.
Click to expand...

Exactly (this last line does counter the rest of your argument).

EDIT: Actually, having re read your post, I don't know what your argument is!!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
Yes it is.

The text on your lenses is marketing and bears no resemblance to reality.



Exactly (this last line does counter the rest of your argument).

EDIT: Actually, having re read your post, I don't know what your argument is!!


Steve.
Click to expand...


It appears the argument is that there is no fixed / formal definition, with which i have to agree.
 
Its 1/1, life size on the sensor/film frame, this applys to small format, that is where it is discussed the most and where it is defined, but I suppose it depends what you are shooting.
M/F and LF is fill the frame, which would be niche on MF, impracticle on 5x4 and down right diabolical on 10x8
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
No it isn't.

Why does my Canon 24-70mm f/4 say "MACRO" on the side of it?

Why do the Sigma 17-70mm and 18-200mm lenses have "MACRO" in their names?

Why does a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 have "MACRO" in its name?

Why does the Nikon 28-105mm have a "MACRO" focusing mode?

Lens manufacturers use the term to mean whatever they want it to mean.
Click to expand...

Yes you can get in close but we are talking true macro, not pseudo-macro as defined.

1:1 or greater is a true macro lens. As I stated earlier. It is taught in colleges and university's. Your lenses are not true macro lenses in the sense that you can't replicate 1:1. There are plenty of scientific and technical papers out there.

Yes you can get close but not to the extent of 1:1 or greater. It is often used in scientific fields ( medical / forensic ) and of course popular for entomology etc. The Nikon 105mm has for many years been the de-facto standard for the Armed Forces, Forensic Scientists and Medical profession.

Just because your lens says 'Macro' on it does not mean that it is a true macro i.e 1:1 or <
 
Anyway, let's see if we can pull all this debate together with a set of statements which we all agree with, and which address the OP's confusion.

(1) There is no universal definition of "macro". It depends on who's using the term and in what context. (For example, the National Geographic article mentioned by the OP suggested a reproduction ratio of 1:2 or better.)

(2) Many photographers will say that "macro" means 1:1 reproduction or greater. However they will sometimes qualify this by referring to it as "true macro" in order to distinguish it from "pseudo macro", which reinforces point (1).

(3) Lens manufacturers do not use "macro" to mean "true macro". It is a marketing term which denotes that the lens has some sort of close-up capability, though the actual magnification may be no greater than about 1:3. Even if the lens has "macro" written on it and on the box it came in, it may not be a "true macro". The only way to find that out is to look at its specifications.

Everyone OK with that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
StewartR said:
OK, I'll make it easier for you.
Click to expand...

What's your point here ?

There is no point in you taking things out of context by stringing a couple of quotes together and I'm not playing semantics with you. In addition, I genuinely don't know if your being deliberately truculent or you didn't understand them. If the latter, I will articulate this again for you as simply as I can.

The thread is about true macro which is defined as 1:1 or greater. If you don't understand this then you are not listening to me or anyone else on this thread. If you have understood this point then any other discussion is superfluous.

To put my original comment(s) back into context. Someone stated that there was no definition of a macro lens. Others (and I) have said that 1:1 or greater is defined as true macro. I went further on to say that this is defined by education (physics). I pointed out that there were numerous papers on the subject. I also gave you a real example of a 1:1 lens as designed / defined by a manufacture.

The examples you quoted are not true macro lenses. They do not give 1:1 reproduction.
 
Rapscallion said:
One way to get peoples knickers in a twist on TP - ask them to define something!!
Click to expand...

It is but unfortunately a lot of lens manufactuers use woolly terminology to beguile people into believing they are getting an outstanding product. Now, I'm a great advocate of Fuji lenses and if you look at the below add. It would have you believe that this is a macro lens. There is even an entomological mage of an insect. As portrait lenses go its very good but I and others have said Fuji have got a cheek calling it a macro lens, it's not a macro lens by any sense of the definition.

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xf60mmf24_r_macro/

Thats why it's important to discern, discuss, learn and inform. Therein is the point of this forum and as a Rapscallion you should be aware of this ;)
 
Tintin124 said:
OK I thought it's this scale.

1:1 to 10:1 is macro
10:1 to above is micro (not the Nikon terminology)
1:10 to 1:1 is considered closeup.

1:1 in LR is just image scaled to 100% so the actual size of the image.

2:1 is essentially 200% in any other software. Or 2x image size

1:1 in a lens refers to the scene width. Eg 1mm will be 1mm as seen on sensor. So if your sensor is 22mm then scene width will be 22mm at closest focus point.
Click to expand...


I am quite happy with the above

I never regard "marketing information" as anything other than an attempt to influence you into buying a product.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top