| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/26/2004 02:53:46 PM · #1 |
....does it have to be larger than life? I only ask because I was just uploading a 'fun' close up when I thought "hang on, with a little ps work this would be rather spiffy" Will you get marked down if your image doesn't fill the frame but is the main focus of the image??
Thanks
|
|
|
|
07/26/2004 03:02:26 PM · #2 |
From Merriam-Webster online...
Main Entry: mac·ro·pho·tog·ra·phy
Pronunciation: "ma-krO-f&-'tä-gr&-fE
Function: noun
: the making of photographs in which the object is either unmagnified or slightly magnified up to a limit often of about 10 diameters
- mac·ro·pho·to·graph /-'fO-t&-"graf/ noun
I always thought it meant life-size (1:1) or larger. But, what do I know.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2004 03:19:02 PM · #3 |
The "traditional" photographic definition of macro is that the object being photographed appears the same size (or larger) on the imager as it is in real life. So if you were shooting negative film, a true "macro" of a penny would mean that you could lay a penny on top of the negative (not the resulting enlargement made by printing the negative), and the penny on the negative would be the same size or larger as the real-life object.
When the image being photographed and the image on the film are the same size, the macro lens is said to be "1:1" capable (the object and the exposed image are the same size). A "1:2" capable macro lens (such as the Canon 50mm/Æ’2.5) means that the image would be half life size on the exposed film.
Note that the "Macro" challenge specifically permits "close-ups", but I think in the past, macro shots (and not just a close-up) have fared better.
Message edited by author 2004-07-26 15:21:17. |
|
|
|
07/26/2004 03:22:09 PM · #4 |
| If your lens gets dirty, you've gone too far. |
|
|
|
07/26/2004 03:47:29 PM · #5 |
Thanks for your replies.
A challenge wouldn't be a challenge if I took my submission on the first day (would it:) This is the shot from tonight, what appealed to me was the psychedelic/surreal background. On closer inspection I probably would not have been able to clean the flower up very much and it was not very sharp at full size. The only editing here was curves on the flower using the magic wand to select. I went outside again (exif data in my head) to remove the fly and retake but I just couldn't get the same effect.
If you'd have scored this more than a five I'll just nip out and shoot myself!
|
|
|
|
07/26/2004 03:53:15 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
If your lens gets dirty, you've gone too far. |
That's when they start getting interesting...
|
|
|
|
07/26/2004 03:54:16 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
If you'd have scored this more than a five I'll just nip out and shoot myself! |
Shoot at close enough range, and you might get a good macro. I'm sure Theodor38 is already working on it. ;-) |
|
|
|
07/26/2004 03:56:04 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
If you'd have scored this more than a five I'll just nip out and shoot myself! |
Shoot at close enough range, and you might get a good macro. I'm sure Theodor38 is already working on it. ;-) |
lol, that took a full minute before the provabial penny dropped!
|
|
|
|
07/26/2004 04:12:20 PM · #9 |
When photo image is larger than actual subjet size people called it macro !
For example :8 inch ant ...
Message edited by author 2004-07-26 16:13:51. |
|
|
|
07/26/2004 04:19:22 PM · #10 |
   
Macro, closeup, or brown award?
Message edited by author 2004-07-26 16:25:06. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 09:07:18 AM · #11 |
Its a good question...
So, lemme see if I get this stright...
This pic:
would be considered a macro vs. one of my cat sitting on a chair or something...
Yes? |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 02:50:43 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by RobCoursey:
Its a good question...
So, lemme see if I get this stright...
This pic:
would be considered a macro vs. one of my cat sitting on a chair or something...
Yes? |
Close-up: yes, so it meets the challenge, but not a macro unless your cat's head is that size in relation to the size of your camera's sensor.
Get just the eye in the uncropped frame and your getting there -- get just the center of the pupil will all the veiny colored lines and your getting close to the top ten. :D Assuming, of course the image is well taken.
David
/edit: finished thought
Message edited by author 2004-07-27 14:53:12.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 03:28:21 PM · #13 |
Well, I don't know the exact definition but I'm pretty sure these are all Macro...
 ,  ,  , 
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 04:18:47 PM · #14 |
| Its not about if it fills the frame or not. Its just a broad terminology about magnification. Anything 1:10 to 1:1 is known as close-up, anything from 1:1 to 10:1 is known as macro. Larger magnification than 10:1 is called micro-photography. The ratio's is simply a relation between a 35 mm film (or CCD) compared to the subject. Thus a 1:1 means that a 5 mm ant would take 5mm on the 35mm frame. In 10:1 a 5mm ant would take 50mm on a 35mm frame. Hope that helps ! |
|
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: 09/08/2025 03:24:08 AM EDT.
