DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Macro or close up
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 17 of 17, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/01/2017 01:36:51 AM · #1
Very unhappy with the last challenge results
Why call a challenge topic Macro? In the whole bunch of entries only very few were macro shots.
There is a clear difference between macro and close up.
Macro is MUCH MORE DIFFICULT than close up.

Don't call it Macro next time, please.
I include here a link explaining it with some examples.

http://www.slrphotographyguide.com/macro-micro-closeup-difference/

12/01/2017 01:47:27 AM · #2
Originally posted by GeorgesBogaert:

Very unhappy with the last challenge results
Why call a challenge topic Macro? In the whole bunch of entries only very few were macro shots.
There is a clear difference between macro and close up.
Macro is MUCH MORE DIFFICULT than close up.

Don't call it Macro next time, please.
I include here a link explaining it with some examples.

http://www.slrphotographyguide.com/macro-micro-closeup-difference/


are so right, macro gets right inside the subject and thats why I got the Brown with a last minute entry ..

Message edited by author 2017-12-01 01:48:27.
12/01/2017 09:33:42 AM · #3
I really thought mine was Macro, sharp and very detailed of a small orange and yes Thank you Georges for the comment!

Anyway, I tried what I was looking to do whether others like it or not, its their point of view.
12/01/2017 09:57:32 AM · #4
It's true that the definition of macro traditionally has been 1:1 magnification or greater. Frankly I have always thought that interpretation was a little narrow. Even 1:2 corresponds to only 72mm field of view (just under 3 inches) on FF, even less on APS-C, and IMO is macro. There were definitely a few images in the challenge that were not macro but close-up.
12/01/2017 10:43:53 AM · #5
Originally posted by kirbic:

There were definitely a few images in the challenge that were not macro but close-up.


Guilty. And I actually thought about this before entering it. But given the abstract nature of the image I posted I figured no one would even know what it is to begin with so it wouldn't ruffle feathers.

My submission Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1208364.jpg
What the image is of. 2Q==
12/01/2017 01:07:32 PM · #6
Originally posted by kirbic:

It's true that the definition of macro traditionally has been 1:1 magnification or greater. Frankly I have always thought that interpretation was a little narrow. Even 1:2 corresponds to only 72mm field of view (just under 3 inches) on FF, even less on APS-C, and IMO is macro. There were definitely a few images in the challenge that were not macro but close-up.

The problem is that with film you have more or less a fixed number of "pixels" (the physical size of the film), whereas with sensors you can have the same number of photo-receptors in many configurations/sizes. A photo which is 3000 pixels wide should be considered the same regardless of the physical dimensions of the sensor.
12/01/2017 01:30:10 PM · #7
I agree with Georges 100%. I want my Blue!! Just kidding. The top 3 images are outstanding and deserve the recognition:)
12/01/2017 08:00:10 PM · #8
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by kirbic:

It's true that the definition of macro traditionally has been 1:1 magnification or greater. Frankly I have always thought that interpretation was a little narrow. Even 1:2 corresponds to only 72mm field of view (just under 3 inches) on FF, even less on APS-C, and IMO is macro. There were definitely a few images in the challenge that were not macro but close-up.

The problem is that with film you have more or less a fixed number of "pixels" (the physical size of the film), whereas with sensors you can have the same number of photo-receptors in many configurations/sizes. A photo which is 3000 pixels wide should be considered the same regardless of the physical dimensions of the sensor.


LOL, we've both been around long enough to remember the arguments discussions about how the original definition of macro related to the tiny sensors in the early digital cameras!
for me, the best possible definition of macro that is sensor-size-agnostic would be to define it as something like "diagonal field of view less than 100mm." With the highest resolution SLRs available today this corresponds to a resolution of about 10 microns per pixel, which by anybody's definition ought to be regarded as macro.

Message edited by author 2017-12-01 20:00:40.
12/01/2017 10:51:48 PM · #9
the only consistent definition of macro I'm seeing is 1:1

so if you don't think the blue is a macro, you don't know how big spiders are
12/01/2017 11:58:28 PM · #10
Originally posted by posthumous:

the only consistent definition of macro I'm seeing is 1:1

so if you don't think the blue is a macro, you don't know how big spiders are


100% of my pictures are macro shots if using that definition.

12/02/2017 01:01:42 AM · #11
Think about this: if I wanted to drop a LOT of time to prove a point, I could use my Macro lens at the 1:1 setting and support my camera on some sort of horizontal tubing arrangement the size of my kitchen table (about 3.5x6 feet) that would allow me to photograph the "grid" that comprises sensor-size pieces of my table top in 1:1 resolution, hundreds of shots, and then piece all these together to make one giant, gigapixel image which, if I printed it to 3.5x6 feet would be, by the 1:1 criterion, a "macro". In fact, speaking in a non-macro sense, that's what the gigapixel people do when they stitch together these incredibly detailed panoramas of city scenes or whatever.

The old-school way of defining macro as a 1:1 reproduction meant that if you shot a 35mm film negative of, say, a dime, then overlaid the negative on an actual dime, the two would be precisely congruent. So if you had a Hasselblad, which shot much bigger film (2 1/4 x 2 1/4 inches) you could have what, 4 dimes in your 1:1 macro with room to spare. And if, like me back in the day, you worked with a 4x5 View Camera, well, THAT negative was 4x5 inches and you could pack a whole bunch of dimes into that 1:1 reproduction. Meaning, of course, that to achieve what we tend to THINK of as a "macro", you'd have to blow the print up pretty big, for any of these formats, to make the dimes look larger-than-life.

And that's not the end of it, either: it's also a matter of VIEWING distance. Make that 4x5 photo of many dimes into a billboard and view it from a car 300 feet away, and it's not especially macro, is it? But make a 20x24 inch PRINT, put it on the wall, and view it at arm's length and boy, howdy! THAT'S macro!

So it's all relative. The concept "macro is only really relevant (IMO) for defining a technical criterion for a "macro lens", which would be that it must be capable of rendering 1:1 or greater magnification when focused to its closest point.

The rest of it is *perception*: the idea of the challenge is to get people closer to a usually unperceived, or perhaps underappreciated, reality. For me, the primary characteristic of a "good" macro is that I look at it and say, "Wow, I didn't realize THAT looked like THIS when you got close!". And a GREAT macro does that whilst at the same time showing technical and artistic mastery. I'm not really concerned with whether it's actually an extreme magnification or not, although I'm inclined to give high scores to well-executed "extreme" macros just because they are so danged hard to do.

The 9th-place image in the just-completed Macro challenge is a fine example of an image that may not technically BE a macro if you're picking nits, but that engages me very well with its revelation-of-detail in a very mundane subject. 21_N.gif Clickodak created this little gem:

Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1208425.jpg
12/03/2017 08:35:13 PM · #12
Originally posted by GeorgesBogaert:

Originally posted by posthumous:

the only consistent definition of macro I'm seeing is 1:1

so if you don't think the blue is a macro, you don't know how big spiders are


100% of my pictures are macro shots if using that definition.


ah... so you live in Lilliput?
12/03/2017 10:59:46 PM · #13
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by GeorgesBogaert:

Originally posted by posthumous:

the only consistent definition of macro I'm seeing is 1:1

so if you don't think the blue is a macro, you don't know how big spiders are

100% of my pictures are macro shots if using that definition.

ah... so you live in Lilliput?

That might be a good challenge topic... "Lilliput", No description, Extended Editing :-)
12/04/2017 02:31:30 AM · #14
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by GeorgesBogaert:

Originally posted by posthumous:

the only consistent definition of macro I'm seeing is 1:1

so if you don't think the blue is a macro, you don't know how big spiders are

100% of my pictures are macro shots if using that definition.

ah... so you live in Lilliput?

That might be a good challenge topic... "Lilliput", No description, Extended Editing :-)


Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1178048.jpg
12/04/2017 05:48:41 AM · #15
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by GeorgesBogaert:

Originally posted by posthumous:

the only consistent definition of macro I'm seeing is 1:1

so if you don't think the blue is a macro, you don't know how big spiders are

100% of my pictures are macro shots if using that definition.

ah... so you live in Lilliput?

That might be a good challenge topic... "Lilliput", No description, Extended Editing :-)

Ummm ... what is 'Lilliput"?
12/04/2017 06:09:09 AM · #16
Originally posted by glad2badad:


Ummm ... what is 'Lilliput"?


Gulliver's Travels, Jonathan Swift, early 18th century. Damn fine read.
12/04/2017 06:51:32 AM · #17
Originally posted by SaraR:

Originally posted by glad2badad:


Ummm ... what is 'Lilliput"?


Gulliver's Travels, Jonathan Swift, early 18th century. Damn fine read.

Oh, yeah. I've read that ... long, LONG, time ago. Obviously. LOL
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 05/24/2018 07:28:33 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2018 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 05/24/2018 07:28:33 PM EDT.