| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/30/2003 10:46:33 PM · #1 |
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php/i/16734
Message edited by author 2003-03-30 22:47:56. |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 10:54:46 PM · #2 |
That's almost a loaded question given the topic of the current members challenge, but since I'm not a member I'll add my opinion...
I'd say that Yes, that is a macro. To be honest, I don't know if there is a technical equation to determine if a shot is macro or not (probably relates to focal length if there is) but I think this shot fits the category. |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 10:55:37 PM · #3 |
| looks like one to me...cool pic! |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 10:58:19 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by sher9204:
looks like one to me...cool pic! |
thanks sher. yeah i took a ton of pics of my friend's bearded dragon and some of them look really cool. i have no idea what to submit for macro |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 11:54:20 PM · #5 |
|
|
|
03/31/2003 09:18:38 AM · #6 |
Macro as read on the Dimage 7Hi manual:
Macro Mode: is used for close-up photographs of small objects.
That might be a macro depending on the size of the object. |
|
|
|
03/31/2003 11:00:56 AM · #7 |
| I got a lame camera that has to be ten meters away to focus on its macro setting, yes this is a macro. |
|
|
|
03/31/2003 11:41:40 AM · #8 |
It has the shallow depth of field that is typical of most macro shots. anyone care to explain what the optics are behind that? Don't know myself ...
Ed
|
|
|
|
03/31/2003 11:43:27 AM · #9 |
Here is a paragraph from Complete Photography Manual: Carlton Books
"The term macro is possibly the most misused word in photography. For years, lens manufacturers have been using it to describe any lens that focuses slightly closer than average. In fact, what they refer to as macro should, more accurately be called close-up. Technically speaking, a photograph cannot considered a true macro shot until the subject is reproduced at life size (1:1) or greater...."(page 141)
Interesting thoughts.
Anthony. |
|
|
|
03/31/2003 12:06:19 PM · #10 |
| I have had 2 comments mentioning that they don't think my photograph could be considered macro, yet I photographed the subject from about 20cm away, the closest my camera can get to the subject. It does seem that there some doubt in some of the voters mind to what is believed to be a macro shot. |
|
|
|
03/31/2003 12:26:09 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Jean:
I have had 2 comments mentioning that they don't think my photograph could be considered macro, yet I photographed the subject from about 20cm away, the closest my camera can get to the subject. It does seem that there some doubt in some of the voters mind to what is believed to be a macro shot. |
WOW 20cm is not that close. i can focus mine at about 5mm. insane closeness
|
|
|
|
03/31/2003 12:31:18 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by rainbow:
Here is a paragraph from Complete Photography Manual: Carlton Books
"The term macro is possibly the most misused word in photography. For years, lens manufacturers have been using it to describe any lens that focuses slightly closer than average. In fact, what they refer to as macro should, more accurately be called close-up. Technically speaking, a photograph cannot considered a true macro shot until the subject is reproduced at life size (1:1) or greater...."(page 141)
Interesting thoughts.
Anthony. |
This is how I understood the term (strictly speaking anyway). But what does 'reproduced' mean? Does it mean the image formed on the film (or sensor), or the final print (which could be blown up).
If the former, then surely most 'macros' taken with digital cameras aren't, in fact, macros since digital camera sensors are so small, the image is almost always reduced (unless I've misunderstood something).
I think generally, macro is used to mean a close-up shot which is how my copy of 'Basic Photography' by Michael Langfod seems to use it.
In those terms, I would consider Jean's shot as a macro.
My 2p worth
|
|
|
|
03/31/2003 12:32:16 PM · #13 |
| Oops. That signature doesn't look right, does it? Better sort that... |
|
|
|
03/31/2003 02:04:43 PM · #14 |
I think that most people are understanding the limitations of digital cameras. Close-up work should be allowed as far as I can understand.
Anthony.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2003 02:22:45 PM · #15 |
In a true macro photo the distance between lens and object should be shorter than the focal distance of that lens. In that way the actual projection of the image on the plane of the film (formerly) or light sensitive device (digital, whatever) is larger than the object being photographed.
In view of the short focal distance of most digital cameras almost all entries can be disqualified since they do not follow that rule (most can't).
If that is what you macro-hardliners are after, just do it. Ask the moderators to d-q the non-macro pics. If you don't, then stop subtracting points from the ballots that you give and take the pictures for their true value.
Message edited by author 2003-03-31 14:23:13. |
|
|
|
03/31/2003 04:56:45 PM · #16 |
Delpends how big the beast is. If it is smaller than 10-15cm, I would say yes.
HJ |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 12:39:57 AM EDT.
