define "macro"

OK, there seems to be some differences of opinion (what a shocker) on what is "macro" and what isn't.

I'd like to hear some rules of thumb for what is currently considered macro. Are macro and close-up interchangeable now? Are there differences in what "most" people consider macro shots versus what, say, pros and competition enterers consider macro?

Just interested.

About 3 years ago when NCUPS first expanded their competition to Digital, the contest organizers asked me to help them write the rules for dividing macro from normal/wideangle. The rule they and lots of other people had was 1:6 ; I think driven by the license plate size framer of the Nikonos.

If you read any of the threads that we've had recently on the difference between 1:1 on the crop sensors and 1:1 on 35mm film/sensors, you'll see the problem.

I suggested a simple translation to 6x36 = 216mm (8.5") as the limit on the width of the long side of the whole imaged area, which is what they adopted at the time, and I think still use.

It's still a little vague since the imaged area expands as you move away from the lens, but if you limit the interpretation to the part in focus, it's pretty close to what the rules were in the bad old days.

Years ago; say 15 years macro was considered any magnification greater than 1:4. Meaning that the image would fill more than 1/4th the frame of a 35 mm negative. As mentioned above by Herb this had to do with the close-up lens and framer for the Nikonos system. Typically the largest macro tubes were 1:3. This distinction was to differentiate shots taken with the Nikonos close-up lens and those taken with a Nikonos and an extension tube.

I remember this very distinctly because my initial UW photo kit was a Nikonos IVa, 35 mm lens, SB101 strobe and the Nikonos close-up lens. Starting on the Island of Okinawa that close-up lens produced great photos but they were always disallowed from any photo contests as "not macro".

People started thinking of images with less magnification as macro when manufactures started labeling lenses as "macro" that had less magnification than you could get with the old 1:3 framer. Now it seems as every PS digicam has a "macro mode".

Hmmm, now I'm totally lost! LOL I was expecting something easy and straightforward ish!

I'm interested because I see a lot of, say, really close-ups of fish that are said to be "macro" shots...but I wasn't sure if they were simply "close-ups".

Is it all about magnification of the subject?

Hmmm, now I'm totally lost!  LOL I was expecting something easy and straightforward ish!

 

I'm interested because I see a lot of, say, really close-ups of fish that are said to be "macro" shots...but I wasn't sure if they were simply "close-ups".

 

Is it all about magnification of the subject?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In practice, I don't spend time worrying about it. There are dives where I dedicate to one subject like a pygmy seahorse, and I jump in with the 100mm lens and diopters and teleconverter and there's no question that I'm shooting macro. Then there are times when I have the same lens on and just shoot the most interesting critter I can find, and if it's a small fish or a big nudi, I don't stop and ask if the shot I want is a macro or closeup. I try to take the most interesting shot depending on the subject and background.

I agree with Herb, just get out and shoot, you can decide if it is macro or not later on For competitions, most contest say that the magnification should be 1:6 or more. This means that the entire frame cannot be more than six times larger than the sensor, with so many sensor sizes you do the math!

I would never think while shooting is this macro or close-up, so no worries there! I always go out simply to enjoy myself and to try to bring home something that pleases me

Really this was more of a cerebral/theoretical question. I appreciate the input!

For me it comes down to what subjects I hope to shoot. I use the 105 if I'm going after small subjects and need a lot of magnification. The greater working distance of the 105 lens allows real great 1:1 macro type shots. If I'm going to look for more a variety of shots I use the 60 mm micro. It allows everything from true macro to what would be considered "close-up" type shoots.

I prefer the 60 most of the time. You can shoot good size fish, corals, ect. and still get the very small subjects. If you want to win a macro contest the 105 is usually best. It is all about working distance as both lenses give you the same 1:1 magnification.