| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/03/2011 04:23:51 PM · #26 |
| I feel like I read somewhere that "macro" originally was also determined based on whether bellows draw needed to be taken into account or not. If you needed to account for bellows draw, you were focusing on something really close, thus taking a macro. Dunno about the validity of that though. I'm sure someone else with more knowledge about that stuff would know better. |
|
|
|
05/03/2011 08:36:27 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
For example, that bee I posted earlier is nowhere near 30mm long in real life, but fills most of the frame; I probably have closer to 2:1 magnification in that shot. |
Nope, you don't. You probably have much less than 1:1, but the fact that your sensor is much smaller means that you cover less area at a given magnification.
Perhaps a thought exercise is in order...
Imagine we imaged your bee with a 35mm DSLR at 1:1 as well as a small-sensor digicam, also at 1:1. Lets say we are printing the image at a certain size, say, 360mm x 240mm (36cm x 24cm or about 14.1in x 9.4in) in each case. We can then ask what is the final magnification of the subject (print vs. real life)? Let's assume your bee is 10mm long (a reasonable guess).
Case 1:
The bee is imaged at 1:1 using a 35mm DSLR having a 36mm x 24mm sensor. It's then enlarged to be printed. The magnification from the sensor to the print is 10:1 (360mm/36mm), so the bee, which was 10mm long in real life, and 10mm long on the sensor, is now 100mm long on the print.
Case 2:
Now let's do the same exercise with a small-sensor digicam. The same bee is imaged with a hypothetical camera having a 12mm x 8mm sensor, again at a magnification of 1:1. The image is then enlarged to the same 360mm x 240mm size as the SLR image. Now the magnification from sensor to print is 360mm/12mm = 30x, and the bee, which did not grow and so is still 10mm long in real life, is now 300mm long on the print!
Case 3:
Let's modify the second case so that the final subject magnification is 10:1; our bee would again be 100mm long on the print, we'd need to shoot the digicam at a magnification of 1:3 in order to achieve this!
You see, format *does* matter, in fact it matters dramatically.
Edit for clarity
Message edited by author 2011-05-03 20:38:05. |
|
|
|
05/04/2011 12:15:33 AM · #28 |
I'm suggesting that "1:1" does not apply to all sensors equally, as your math shows. If the bee is 10mm long on a piece of film (36mm), then the image of the bee as projected on a sensor 12mm long need only be 3.33mm to be the same effective size.
To me, all the argument about whether something is a "macro" based solely on the size of the image as projected on the sensor/film is a waste of time. It seems to me that the idea is to judge the size of the subject image as a proportion of the available image area, and in proportion to a 35mm frame.
I liked the idea of just resizing the image to 36mm wide and seeing if the resulting subject image was "life-size" or not -- to me that says whether the same setup would have yielded a "true" macro if shot with a 35mm piece of film in place of the sensor. |
|
|
|
05/04/2011 01:12:28 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by danonkeys:
I thought the term macro in the photographic context was similar to macro in the context of microscopes. You use a microscope to magnify things several times by shining light through them -- thus allowing you to see through/at different depths depending on focus. You use a macro microscope to view the surface of things magnified, just like you would with a photographic macro lens. I'm probably way off. |
This is what I thought as well |
|
|
|
05/04/2011 03:19:51 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm suggesting that "1:1" does not apply to all sensors equally, as your math shows. If the bee is 10mm long on a piece of film (36mm), then the image of the bee as projected on a sensor 12mm long need only be 3.33mm to be the same effective size.
To me, all the argument about whether something is a "macro" based solely on the size of the image as projected on the sensor/film is a waste of time. It seems to me that the idea is to judge the size of the subject image as a proportion of the available image area, and in proportion to a 35mm frame.
I liked the idea of just resizing the image to 36mm wide and seeing if the resulting subject image was "life-size" or not -- to me that says whether the same setup would have yielded a "true" macro if shot with a 35mm piece of film in place of the sensor. |
But that doesn't make sense. Then cropping any image means you're changing the magnification ratio, which is absurd.
In concept, I understand where you're going, but the ratio refers to the physical size, not the relative size. While there can be argument about what is and is not macro, the concept of reproduction size is pretty established, so far as I've ever seen, and it is the relationship of the object in real life to the physical size on the recording medium.
|
|
|
|
05/04/2011 04:24:36 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
But that doesn't make sense. Then cropping any image means you're changing the magnification ratio, which is absurd.
In concept, I understand where you're going, but the ratio refers to the physical size, not the relative size. While there can be argument about what is and is not macro, the concept of reproduction size is pretty established, so far as I've ever seen, and it is the relationship of the object in real life to the physical size on the recording medium. |
Lovely to see someone else making sense, here :-) But we seem to be fighting a losing battle...
R. |
|
|
|
05/04/2011 04:52:04 AM · #32 |
So macro is Greek for large, as in macro economics (studying large market forces) and macro photography (making bugs big),
And micro is Greek for small, as in micro economics (studying if the checkbook is balanced) and micro photography(making cells big). If micro photography is making is really small much much bigger, and macro photography is (roughly) life sized or a little bigger, what do we call the other 99% of what we shoot? What is bigger than macro? |
|
|
|
05/04/2011 06:06:03 AM · #33 |
| Ask the troll, he/she knows best. They should, they voted it a macro or a not-macro. |
|
|
|
05/04/2011 06:07:41 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So macro is Greek for large, as in macro economics (studying large market forces) and macro photography (making bugs big),
And micro is Greek for small, as in micro economics (studying if the checkbook is balanced) and micro photography(making cells big). If micro photography is making is really small much much bigger, and macro photography is (roughly) life sized or a little bigger, what do we call the other 99% of what we shoot? What is bigger than macro? |
The bullet that went through Has-Bin laden's head was bigger than macro. |
|
|
|
05/04/2011 12:49:18 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by docpjv:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So macro is Greek for large, as in macro economics (studying large market forces) and macro photography (making bugs big),
And micro is Greek for small, as in micro economics (studying if the checkbook is balanced) and micro photography(making cells big). If micro photography is making is really small much much bigger, and macro photography is (roughly) life sized or a little bigger, what do we call the other 99% of what we shoot? What is bigger than macro? |
The bullet that went through Has-Bin laden's head was bigger than macro. |
I accuse thee of attempted thread hi-jacking.
|
|
|
|
05/04/2011 01:07:19 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
But that doesn't make sense. Then cropping any image means you're changing the magnification ratio, which is absurd. |
I'm not talking about cropping (or resampling), I'm talking about using the full size of the sensor and the available pixels only. I'll try to make a diagram later to see if I can make what I mean more clear. |
|
|
|
05/04/2011 02:03:59 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
But that doesn't make sense. Then cropping any image means you're changing the magnification ratio, which is absurd.
In concept, I understand where you're going, but the ratio refers to the physical size, not the relative size. While there can be argument about what is and is not macro, the concept of reproduction size is pretty established, so far as I've ever seen, and it is the relationship of the object in real life to the physical size on the recording medium. |
Lovely to see someone else making sense, here :-) But we seem to be fighting a losing battle...
R. |
No one is debating that a physical reproduction ratio of 1:1 (of subject size to image size *on sensor*) is what the original definition of "macro" was all about. But that definition was based on the 35mm system. No one used it for large format, and macro equipment for smaller film formats did not exist. So the 1:1 ratio was a convenient break-point as defined for the 35mm system, and came to be the common definition of macro.
Our situation today is quite different. The range of sensor sizes used for macro work is tremendous, and a single, simple definition, like 1:1 reproduction ratio is no longer descriptive.
By the old 35mm, 1:1 definition, a photo with a field of view smaller than about 54mm (1:2) to 36mm (1:1) is where macro begins. The viewer of a photo doesn't care about the reproduction ratio; they perceive the "closeness" by the FoV. Applying this directly to modern equipment, any photo we take that includes less than about 50mm (2 inches) of subject can, by the old definition, be considered a macro shot. The key is that for small-sensor cameras, this means that macro starts at reproduction ratios as small as 1:5 or so.
ETA: Is the image below a macro?
Message edited by author 2011-05-04 14:32:47.
|
|
|
|
05/04/2011 03:58:55 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
For example, that bee I posted earlier is nowhere near 30mm long in real life, but fills most of the frame; I probably have closer to 2:1 magnification in that shot. |
Nope, you don't. You probably have much less than 1:1, but the fact that your sensor is much smaller means that you cover less area at a given magnification.
Perhaps a thought exercise is in order...
Imagine we imaged your bee with a 35mm DSLR at 1:1 as well as a small-sensor digicam, also at 1:1. Lets say we are printing the image at a certain size, say, 360mm x 240mm (36cm x 24cm or about 14.1in x 9.4in) in each case. We can then ask what is the final magnification of the subject (print vs. real life)? Let's assume your bee is 10mm long (a reasonable guess).
Case 1:
The bee is imaged at 1:1 using a 35mm DSLR having a 36mm x 24mm sensor. It's then enlarged to be printed. The magnification from the sensor to the print is 10:1 (360mm/36mm), so the bee, which was 10mm long in real life, and 10mm long on the sensor, is now 100mm long on the print.
Case 2:
Now let's do the same exercise with a small-sensor digicam. The same bee is imaged with a hypothetical camera having a 12mm x 8mm sensor, again at a magnification of 1:1. The image is then enlarged to the same 360mm x 240mm size as the SLR image. Now the magnification from sensor to print is 360mm/12mm = 30x, and the bee, which did not grow and so is still 10mm long in real life, is now 300mm long on the print!
Case 3:
Let's modify the second case so that the final subject magnification is 10:1; our bee would again be 100mm long on the print, we'd need to shoot the digicam at a magnification of 1:3 in order to achieve this!
You see, format *does* matter, in fact it matters dramatically.
Edit for clarity |
I have a problem with your math, or at least your print sizes.
Keeping everything equal, in either scenario, a 10x print of a 1:1 will yield the same size bee. The print from the smaller sensor will be smaller than the print from the larger sensor, but the bee will be the same size (10x). The 10mm bee on the 12mm sensor will fill most of the frame. The bee on the larger(36mm) sensor will not.
Your 3rd scenario assumes you want the bee to be the same size in each instance relative to the sensor size. A 1:3 magnification printed to a 10x enlargement would not produce a 100mm bee, more like a 33.3mm bee.
|
|
|
|
05/04/2011 04:27:57 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
No one is debating that a physical reproduction ratio of 1:1 (of subject size to image size *on sensor*) is what the original definition of "macro" was all about. But that definition was based on the 35mm system. No one used it for large format, and macro equipment for smaller film formats did not exist. So the 1:1 ratio was a convenient break-point as defined for the 35mm system, and came to be the common definition of macro.
Our situation today is quite different. The range of sensor sizes used for macro work is tremendous, and a single, simple definition, like 1:1 reproduction ratio is no longer descriptive.
By the old 35mm, 1:1 definition, a photo with a field of view smaller than about 54mm (1:2) to 36mm (1:1) is where macro begins. The viewer of a photo doesn't care about the reproduction ratio; they perceive the "closeness" by the FoV. Applying this directly to modern equipment, any photo we take that includes less than about 50mm (2 inches) of subject can, by the old definition, be considered a macro shot. The key is that for small-sensor cameras, this means that macro starts at reproduction ratios as small as 1:5 or so.
ETA: Is the image below a macro?
|
FOV does not equal magnification ratio. (I know, you said that) but, to say that macro is somewhat exclusive to 35mm format is not accurate.
120mm Macro for Hassy
It focuses down to 1:1 and I promise you the bee would be the same size on the Blad sensor as it would be on a 1:1 Nikon or Canon sensor.
And it you crop the Blad file to the same dimensions as the Nikon file, it will be identical in FOV.
Message edited by author 2011-05-04 16:43:18. |
|
|
|
05/04/2011 04:32:23 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I have a problem with your math, or at least your print sizes.
Keeping everything equal, in either scenario, a 10x print of a 1:1 will yield the same size bee. The print from the smaller sensor will be smaller than the print from the larger sensor, but the bee will be the same size (10x). The 10mm bee on the 12mm sensor will fill most of the frame. The bee on the larger(36mm) sensor will not. |
Well, yes, but what you suggest is a different scenario entirely. What I suggested is *printing to the same size* so that with the SLR you have a 10x print of a 1:1 shot, and with the digicam, a 30x print of a 1:1 shot, but the end print size is the same.
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Your 3rd scenario assumes you want the bee to be the same size in each instance relative to the sensor size. A 1:3 magnification printed to a 10x enlargement would not produce a 100mm bee, more like a 33.3mm bee. |
Yes, that's true. But remember, in order to print to the same size as the SLR, the digicam image needs to be a 30x enlargement... et voila, the bee is 100mm again.
|
|
|
|
05/04/2011 04:41:54 PM · #41 |
| This is all dizzyingly confusing. Someone should start a thread about it. |
|
|
|
05/04/2011 04:56:18 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I have a problem with your math, or at least your print sizes.
Keeping everything equal, in either scenario, a 10x print of a 1:1 will yield the same size bee. The print from the smaller sensor will be smaller than the print from the larger sensor, but the bee will be the same size (10x). The 10mm bee on the 12mm sensor will fill most of the frame. The bee on the larger(36mm) sensor will not. |
Well, yes, but what you suggest is a different scenario entirely. What I suggested is *printing to the same size* so that with the SLR you have a 10x print of a 1:1 shot, and with the digicam, a 30x print of a 1:1 shot, but the end print size is the same.
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Your 3rd scenario assumes you want the bee to be the same size in each instance relative to the sensor size. A 1:3 magnification printed to a 10x enlargement would not produce a 100mm bee, more like a 33.3mm bee. |
Yes, that's true. But remember, in order to print to the same size as the SLR, the digicam image needs to be a 30x enlargement... et voila, the bee is 100mm again. |
I hear ya, my main point is magnification ratio is still a valid measure of focusing ability, regardless of format. At least easier for my simple brain to grasp.
1:1 = life size on the film/image plane.
FOV is a little harder to quantify when condsidering macro capabilities. |
|
|
|
05/04/2011 05:07:50 PM · #43 |
Silly DPCers, making stuff all complicated and arguing over extraneous minutae. It's simple.
mac ro [mak-roh]
adjective, noun, plural -ros
When I takes pitchers of really small stuff and makes it look really big.
Message edited by author 2011-05-04 17:09:08. |
|
|
|
05/04/2011 08:44:55 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I hear ya, my main point is magnification ratio is still a valid measure of focusing ability, regardless of format. At least easier for my simple brain to grasp.
1:1 = life size on the film/image plane.
FOV is a little harder to quantify when condsidering macro capabilities. |
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm getting at, as well.
To me, this makes sense because it is the actual magnification that the device is providing- 1:1 means the image on the recording medium equals that of the physical object, and any complications based on the resolution of the medium are removed. It's these complications that really get to be the sticking point in this conversation (as in, where the bee is a smaller portion of the frame and whatnot). |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/20/2025 08:57:52 AM EDT.
