# Macro on a Massive scale?



## TobiasV (Apr 2, 2013)

Don't know if this is macro enough, as far as the concrete is concerned? Liked the contrast.


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 2, 2013)

TobiasV said:


> Don't know if this is macro enough, as far as the concrete is concerned? Liked the contrast.
> 
> <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40955"/>



Not really macro. No. It's a somewhat scenic area with misplaced focus and poor framing. Not macro though. Sorry bro.


----------



## TobiasV (Apr 2, 2013)

This more macro? Poor Framing?


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 2, 2013)

TobiasV said:


> This more macro? Poor Framing?
> 
> <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40957"/>



Can't say this one is more macro. Sorry man. You really need different optics to get closer to your subject. There is also a black blob in the lower right which I would qualify as poor framing.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 2, 2013)

TobiasV said:


> This more macro? Poor Framing?



I'm trying to figure out what it is.  Spider webs on a fence? Fuzz from a blanket pulled off a clothesline? The left side is so OOF I don't know if it's the subject, or a cracked car window.


----------



## TobiasV (Apr 2, 2013)

Seems like everyone is having fun at the moment...

Bad framing, bad lumo effect, bad photography and no real macro...

Lets see.... dig dig dig...

OK, something a little more Macro?



better yet?

ps... spider webs on fence


----------



## Overread (Apr 2, 2013)

The problem with the shots is that your in focus and nearest primary point of interest is bereft of interest. A concrete block, a few power/phone lines is just not interesting to most people, so when its presented up front and in the prime point of interest it really makes someone flick their eyes away fast. I think that what you need to do is study some more landscape photographs, which is what I'd count the style you're currently producing and have a look at those which make use of a foreground point of interest.

If you want to push more macro then have a look at "wide angle" macro photography which I think is the style that you are trying to be best produce/emulate.


----------



## TobiasV (Apr 2, 2013)

Better? or do I need images of Bugs?


----------



## TATTRAT (Apr 2, 2013)

macro






Not macro


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 2, 2013)

Since there's no 'official' definition of the word macro, I can call anything I want a macro.


----------



## Overread (Apr 2, 2013)

"true macro" so far as photography is concerned has, in my experiences and reading, alwasy been taken to be a 1:1 ratio of Size of the image as reflected on the sensor/film by the lens : size of the subject in real life. This ratio is also called actual size or life size. 

Macro has also come to be used (by companies and people in casual conversation) to also mean "close up" photography of a ratio typically around 0.5:1 through to 1:1 (ie half life size to life size). In addition macro is also used as a catch all term for higher magnifications as well. Subject also comes into play - dragonflies, butterflies, moths and flowers are a good series of examples of photos that are often taken at weaker magnifications than 1:1 but which are generally considered "macro" as subjects.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 3, 2013)

I like the concrete block, and I like the concept more.


----------

