Definition of Macro Photography

[padu]

or photomacrography, whatever suits you :)

I'm looking for a formal definition (if there is any) of what it is.

I always thought the definition was the 1:1 magnification rule on the sensing media (sensor or film), and in fact I found this definition in a lot of places, including wikipedia, but I want to know if there is a more authoritative source for that information.

I know there are a lot of great macro photographers here...

[ziggy53]

or photomacrography, whatever suits you :)

I'm looking for a formal definition (if there is any) of what it is.

I always thought the definition was the 1:1 magnification rule on the sensing media (sensor or film), and in fact I found this definition in a lot of places, including wikipedia, but I want to know if there is a more authoritative source for that information.

I know there are a lot of great macro photographers here...

While there is the "true macro" definition of 1:1, where the image size at the image plane matches the subject size, there is also a "marketing macro", commonly used in zoom lens descriptions as just "macro", which infers an image that is "printed" to lifesize at a 4"x6" print size (roughly A6). In this case the image is obviously enlarged when printed and about 1:4, or 1/4 lifesize (or less).

It would also appear that around 6:1 or so the terminology switches to "micro", except for Nikon who regularly use the term "Micro" to describe their "macro" series lenses.

In the other direction, starting at about 1:2 it appears more correct to use the term "close focus" (unless you are a lens manufacturer using the "marketing" form of the word "macro".)

Confused? I am. :wink

[padu]

I've been researching the definition around lately, and more or less I got the same idea you just posted.

What I'm having problems with is finding a good source that defines the "true macro as 1:1".

[ziggy53]

Nikon:
http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/about/history/nikkor/n25_e.htm

Olympus:
http://www.olympuszuiko.com/macro

VividLight:
http://www.vividlight.com/articles/2914.htm#macro

[padu]

Nikon:
http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/about/history/nikkor/n25_e.htm

Olympus:
http://www.olympuszuiko.com/macro

VividLight:
http://www.vividlight.com/articles/2914.htm#macro

Thank you!

I had the one from vividlight, but I think the nikkon and olympus have a good weight.

[Icebear]

I've been researching the definition around lately, and more or less I got the same idea you just posted.

What I'm having problems with is finding a good source that defines the "true macro as 1:1".

Is there a lawsuit depending on an expert opinion?? Otherwise, who cares? I've seen lots of stuff posted in the Holy Macro forum that doesn't meet the 1:1 definition, but if it makes folks happy to be trying their best with what they've got . . . :dunno .

[padu]

Is there a lawsuit depending on an expert opinion?? Otherwise, who cares? I've seen lots of stuff posted in the Holy Macro forum that doesn't meet the 1:1 definition, but if it makes folks happy to be trying their best with what they've got . . . :dunno .

No lawsuit. And I agree, I don't care. I can shoot "true" macros with my large format that don't look like macro. For me is more a style than a number. The question is just to settle a dispute with a friend, that stubbornly says that the 1:1 definition doesn't make sense :scratch

I found some links online, but none as respected as the ones Ziggy gave me.

[Icebear]

Wow! I'll bet DOF at macro distances is practically paper-thin with your 4x5, no?

[padu]

Wow! I'll bet DOF at macro distances is practically paper-thin with your 4x5, no?

It is, and it can get even thinner depending if I use any movement.

[puzzledpaul]

Don't know if this'll be of any interest?

pp

http://www.photomacrography2.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=910