# What is technically considered macro ?



## Bram (Aug 28, 2010)

Hello Macro lovers,

I'm just curious as to what exactly is considered macro, I currently have some photos of water drops, I don't know if that's considered macro or not, I will definately post the photos when I get home from work. Just looking for some clarification.

Thanks!


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 28, 2010)

Most people would consider macro to be 1:1 or greater.  (Or at least close to 1:1.)

That means that the image on the film/sensor is life size.

Anything less than 1:1 (1:2, for example) would usually be considered 'close-up'.


----------



## Bram (Aug 28, 2010)

So I guess the photos I got of the water drops would be considered close up then.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 28, 2010)

Probably...  I wouldn't lose any sleep over it though.

If it's close to 1:1, I usually would still consider it macro.  I mean, if it's not obvious as hell that it's _not_ 1:1, that's close enough to be 'macro' in my book.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 28, 2010)

They even put Macro marking on my Sigma only because the minimum focus distance is closer than most lenses in it's class.  It cant even do 1:1.


----------



## Overread (Aug 28, 2010)

Macro on zoom lenses is more of a marketing move than anything else and  some of the lenses with that can't get even to 1:2 (half life size).

Generally its as said above - true macro is a 1:1 ratio or greater - in other words what you get through a true macro lens when focused at its closest focusing point.


However the water muddies a little as many things like flowers and stuff between 1:1 and 1:2 magnifications also gets thrown into the macro/closeup groupings. It just depends how strict the group you are with defines macro - some keep to the hard rule whilst others are a little more liberal - also subject matter can affect the acceptance as well - eg butterfly and dragonfly shots are often said to be macro when a full bodied shot of most is far too big for a 1:1 magnification.


----------



## Bram (Aug 28, 2010)

Thank you so much guys definately cleared the air there. I will definately post my photos just to see what you think, they were my first attempt at water drops so if they're fail, dont C&C too harsh


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 28, 2010)

Overread said:


> also subject matter can affect the acceptance as well - eg butterfly and dragonfly shots are often said to be macro when a full bodied shot of most is far too big for a 1:1 magnification.


That's true - I hadn't really considered that.

A dragonfly or butterfly is obviously bigger than the sensor, so it would be impossible to get a full-body shot at 1:1.  I still think of it as macro though...


----------



## Arkanjel Imaging (Aug 28, 2010)

While I generally agree with the 1:1 definition I also group photos taken from less than 1' in the same catagory.


----------



## Bram (Aug 28, 2010)

Oh alright cool thanks alot for all the info guys definately helping me here.


----------



## Overread (Aug 28, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > also subject matter can affect the acceptance as well - eg butterfly and dragonfly shots are often said to be macro when a full bodied shot of most is far too big for a 1:1 magnification.
> ...



Unless of course we enlarge the actual sensor size itself - I wonder how big a large format sensor is?


----------

