Macro challenge.... - DPChallenge Forums

03/31/2003 04:35:09 PM · #1

Originally posted by Jeileen:

The macro shots of the current challenge are indeed interesting.

(from a different thread)

Damn right ;)

Unfortunately, I think many of the shots aren't actually macro shots.

The traditional photography definition of "macro" is taking a picture where the size of the subject and the size on the film is 1:1 or better. I.e if you take a picture of a coin, and place the coin on the developed negative, the coin should be the same size or smaller than the picture of the coin.

In the early 90s, lens makers started relabeling lenses that were specifically designed to have better quality up close (traditionally, lenses would be best when focussed on infinity) as "macro" lenses. These lenses would normally have a 1:2 rating (the coin from the example above would be half the size).

Obviously, this definition is not applicable when we are talking about digital photography, as the imaging chips - especially in amateur cameras, and even in the pro world there are only three exceptions - are a lot smaller than 35mm film.

So what is macro? Well, I don't know. But if what you took a picture of wasn't small, it ain't a macro photograph ;)

Haje

03/31/2003 04:52:11 PM · #2

What if it is a picture of a small part of a large onject?

03/31/2003 05:02:05 PM · #3

Originally posted by dadas115:

What if it is a picture of a small part of a large onject?

Obviously that is Macro as well!

It is also possible to fake macro, actually, by taking a picture using regular focussing distances, and then cropping it to a small picture. This would obviously work best with hires cams. But that would be 'cheating'.

HJ

bod

03/31/2003 05:06:54 PM · #4

Originally posted by SharQ:

It is also possible to fake macro, actually, by taking a picture using regular focussing distances, and then cropping it to a small picture. This would obviously work best with hires cams. But that would be 'cheating'.

Only in the same way as taking a colour shot then converting it to B&W or Sepia is 'cheating'. :P

03/31/2003 05:07:34 PM · #5

How many consumer digicams are actually capable of 1:1 (life-size) photography without the use of an inverted lens or some similar technique? If the challenge followed your rule for "what is macro" then I think most people wouldn't be able to participate.

03/31/2003 05:22:48 PM · #6

I am wondering where you are finding your definition of macro photography. I hadn't ever heard that a photo wasn't a macro if it wasn't at life-size magnification. I am not saying you are wrong, I just hadnâ��t heard of that before, I certainly donâ��t claim to know everything there is to know about photography or anything for that matter. Out of curiosity I looked up the Webster Dictionary definition of macro. Obviously this refers to something large or prominent. When I looked down a couple of entries I noticed the definition of a â��macro lensâ�� and here is what I found.

Main Entry: macro lens
Function: noun
Etymology: macr-, from the fact that the focal length is greater than normal
Date: 1961
: a camera lens designed to focus at very short distances with up to life-size magnification of the image

This is indeed interesting to me since Canon sells a â��macro lensâ�� that only goes to half life-size magnification. It is the EF 50mm f/2.5 compact macro. You can buy a separate life-size adapter for it to make it do life size, but that is extra. I also noticed that there are some quite old lenses called macro lenses that do not do 1:1 mag. My interpretation of the dictionary entry is that it isnâ��t a macro lens if it doesnâ��t do 1:1. However, the entry is from 1961. An interesting thing I learned back in college was how dictionaries are made. The definitions come from how the words are used in modern literature. Apparently the definition of macro photography has changed since 1961.

Just some thoughts about macro.

Greg

03/31/2003 05:38:34 PM · #7

Originally posted by dadas115:

How many consumer digicams are actually capable of 1:1 (life-size) photography without the use of an inverted lens or some similar technique?

Quite a few, actually. Most nikons (900-series for certain) can do it natively. close up filters or a loupe(!) should sort nearly everyone else out. Personally, I use closeup rings, but that obviously demands a camera with interchangable lenses.

HJ

03/31/2003 05:47:33 PM · #8

Originally posted by dadas115:

I am wondering where you are finding your definition of macro photography.

Whoops. I have to eat my words here.

Still: "A true macro or micro lens (different manufacturers use different terms; I will use the term macro lens) is specially designed to offer a short minimum focusing distance. These lenses usually offer a maximum magnification rate of approximately 1:1 or 1:2" (source)

I found one source that backs up my claims here, but then again, I wrote that, so I suppose it doesn't count.

I am pretty sure I have heard this several times in my local photo club (Oslo Fotoklubb), but I cannot actually find a source on it now.

My original point still stands, however: I would claim that if you take a picture of your whole hand, it isn't macro, unless you are shooting large format. Or unless you have a very small hand.

03/31/2003 05:52:51 PM · #9

The coolpix 9xx series are about the best as far as macro goes and they just barely make it. For the most part I have found the quality of close-up filters to leave a lot to be desired. By closeup rings are you rlike tubes myself but they are really no substitute for a dedicated macro lens IMHO.

03/31/2003 05:57:40 PM · #10

I went and checked on the coolpix 990, which is a camera I own. The diagnal size of the sensor is 0.555'' and the minimum macro area of 0.8x0.6'' Not even the coolpix 990 can do 1:1 macro without extra equipment.

03/31/2003 06:07:55 PM · #11

Originally posted by dadas115:

I think I will have to disagree with you. I use a Canon 28-105 lens (which is labeled "macro" for reasons I cannot discern. That was not why I bought it, so that's all right) together with a set of macro rings (31mm, 21mm and 13mm). The two together offer an amazing flexibility. Because the zoom has a lot of leeway, you can focus by zooming and finefocus with the focusing ring (Yeh, bad practice, but it works). If extremely shallow DOF is required, I shoot with the same rings, but using a 50/1.8.

Of course, bellows are a lot more fun (and easy to make yourself! Remind me to do a tutorial on that some time), but macro rings work in the exact same way.

You can, of course, combine macro rings with reversed lens. Remember that some EOS lenses can be stopped down by setting the aperture, pressing DOF preview, and just taking the lens off the camera. You can then use a reversal ring to fix it to the cambody.

For serious macro, however, I use my Mamiya with a reversed 80mm lens.

HJ

03/31/2003 06:09:24 PM · #12

Originally posted by dadas115:

Not even the coolpix 990 can do 1:1 macro without extra equipment.

True. But, if you reread my original post, you see that I say that the definition of macro for digicams is invalid ;)

I think we basically agree, but that I am just nitpicking too much. Sorry.

HJ

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

03/31/2003 06:52:34 PM · #13

Why is your definition any different for digicams? I don't see how it would be any different. The problem with extension tubes is that you lose light with them and also there is some image degradation near the edges of the frame. I use extension tubes with my 50mm f/1.8 all the time but they still donâ��t give the edge to edge sharpness that you get with the dedicated macro lenses (50mm f/2.5, MP-E 65mm, 100mm f/2.8 and 180mm f/3.5L) of which I have all 4. I find dedicated macro lenses to be more flexible than the use of tubes with a normal lens. The reason for this is that when you put tubes behind your 50mm f/1.8 or 28-105 you can no longer focus at subjects in the distance. For example this past weekend I was out taking pictures and saw some flowers that I thought would make a nice subject. I snapped some tubes on my 300mm f/4 and started taking some nice close-ups of the flowers. While I was snapping away I heard a hawk squawking above me. Quickly I tried to grab a shot of the bird but alas he was too far away for me to focus on him so I missed a potentially great shot. If I had my 180mm macro I would have at least had a chance of getting the shot.

Here is a shot I made using the EF 50mm f/1.8 II with a 30mm tube behind it and an Olympus MCON-35 on the front of it.

//gallery.consumerreview.com/webcrossing/images/57ec1257-600(1).jpg

Greg

Sonifo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

03/31/2003 07:49:37 PM · #14

I was about 2 inches away from my subjects. I used macro mode on my camera. If I didn't use macro mode then it would have been blurry. I got a comment saying mine isn't a macro. What ever!!!!!!!

It was macro on my camera and just because it isn't at the closest range it can go doesnt' mean it is not macro.

03/31/2003 08:23:50 PM · #15

Originally posted by dadas115:

Why is your definition any different for digicams?

For the exact same reason why you said: Chips on digicams are a lot smaller than film frames on 35mm.

Originally posted by dadas115:

I find dedicated macro lenses to be more flexible than the use of tubes with a normal lens.

I suppose it all depends on what you are used to and what you are willing to pay for equipment. I do macro stuff on a regular basis (the fashion magazine I work for often want extreme closeups of details of the fabric and / or details in jewelry etc), but I always shoot with extension tubes. I have never quite experienced a drastic dropoff in quality towards the edges, but you are probably right. However; For my use, it does not really matter, as the photographs are often included in designs, rather than being used by themselves.

Originally posted by dadas115:

For example this past weekend I was out taking pictures and saw some flowers that I thought would make a nice subject. (...) If I had my 180mm macro I would have at least had a chance of getting the shot.

Interesting. I suppose that is just the difference between our photography styles. If I am working with macro, I accept that my camera is useless for everytyhing else. Just as when I am working with sports stuff with a 400mm f/2.8L II (which I unfortunately don't own. I borrow it from the sports desk), I accept that I cannot turn around and take snapshots of the crowd.

In an ideal world, all lenses should focus from 5mm to infinity, be f/1.2 or brighter, have no abberations or lens faults, and be 8mm - 800mm zooms, weighing less than 500 grammes, have instant and perfect autofocus, and cost less than fifty quid. This is not an ideal world, though :)

The photo you posted is an example of a great macro shot. The background (an arm?) could be better, perhaps, but I love the shallow DOF and the perfect focus. Good work.

Message edited by author 2003-03-31 20:32:22.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

03/31/2003 08:29:59 PM · #16

Originally posted by Sonifo:

It was macro on my camera and just because it isn't at the closest range it can go doesnt' mean it is not macro.

What is known as macro mode on many digital cameras is merely a closer focus mode. Because many digicams have slow focussing, it would be even slower if it went through its whole range (say 10cm to infinity). Instead, many digicams have a "macro" mode, which limits the regular focussing from, say, 40 cm to infinity. When you get closer than 40 cm, you have to tell the camera that the objects are closer than 40 cm.

The same type of technology is often found in more expensive glass, such as the expensive teleobjectives from Canon (the 70-200 f/2.8 L being an example.) Although the AF on this lens is lightning fast, it has a switch that says something like "1.2 - infinity" and "3.8 - infinity". The reason why this switch exists is that Canon have realised that if the camera tries to focus close to the lens, it may waste valuable fractions of a seconds to pro photographers - because the photographers KNOW that the subject is furhther than 3.8 meters away.

I am not saying that you photograph is bad (I am not even saying that it isn't macro), but if the subject you photographed is larger than, say, a half litre coke bottle, chances are it received a low rating from me, because I don't see it as a macro photograph. It may still win the whole competition - people see macro differently, and I am not deluding myself into believing my definition is something everybody should folow ;)

Haje

Sonifo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

03/31/2003 10:52:18 PM · #17

Macro to me is a closer shot then you would normally shoot. How often do you take your camera a shoot 5 inches away from a subject. Unless you use the macro mode on your camera? Not very often.

My photo is doing pretty good. It is not first or even in the top 20, but I am satified. considering I couldn't think of anything interesting to shoot.

04/01/2003 01:23:36 AM · #18

I still don't understand why it is any different for a digicam. By your definition of macro the sensor size shouldn't matter. The only thing that matters is that the image projected on the sensor/film is projected at the same size as it is in real life. I do greater than life-size with my coolpix all the time using inverted 35mm lenses.

My statement about a dedicated macro being more versatile was in response to your statement that tubes are so flexible. They aren't as flexible as a dedicated macro lens.

Anyway, you seem to be a very knowledgeable and competent photographer and apparently must be making a living at it. That is more than I can say for myself. I actually have no formal training in photography or art; it is just a hobby for me. I am a scientist by training, and I guess I take that approach to photography.

Greg

indigo997

Nikon D70

04/01/2003 01:28:45 AM · #19

Don't you hate that, Sonifo? I sit around waiting on some sort of idea to float into my head, but it rarely happens. I usually end up shooting the first idea I thought of (which usually isn't very original) and just work on the technical side to compensate for the lack of creativity. I did a semi macro for the symmetry challenge, and it's above a 5 (and slowly climbing) so I can't complain.
I agree with the definition of a macro as a shot taken closer than normal regardless of the subject's size.