Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: How do you consider a shots is macro?

  1. #1

    Default How do you consider a shots is macro?

    hi guys...

    How do you consider a shot is macro? mus it be 1:1 ?
    well... my .2 cents is some shots need not to be in 1:1 or focus too much on the small part of the object then consider macro.... e.g.... i don't really agree with some comment like.... you must buy and use a macro lens, then you can shoot the eye/face/details of the bugs...

    well... in certain point of view it might be right, but why can't we shoot the whole bug itself while it landing on the leave?

    share ur though..

  2. #2
    Senior Member Galdor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Planet Gaia
    Posts
    9,544

    Default Re: How do you consider a shots is macro?

    It really depends on what you want to achieve.

    Bugs are usually very small. To me, as long as i can see the insect and some details, it's good enough. I do not need to see the fine details (eg. the hair on the head).

    Anyway, that's just me and it may not be agreeable to others.
    Minolta. Konica Minolta. Sony

  3. #3
    Senior Member zac08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East
    Posts
    11,755

    Default Re: How do you consider a shots is macro?

    Definination :

    From Wiki

    Michael Lim
    My Flickr Site

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Western Singapore
    Posts
    91

    Default Re: How do you consider a shots is macro?

    Quite subjective depending on what the photographer is trying to achieve, some like to show a close up with a little indication of the surroundings while others may want to zoom in on certain parts of the subject. At the end of the day if you achieve the kind of shots that you want, thats all it matters.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Singapore, east-ish
    Posts
    2,291

    Default Re: How do you consider a shots is macro?

    Quote Originally Posted by lifepursuer View Post
    Quite subjective depending on what the photographer is trying to achieve, some like to show a close up with a little indication of the surroundings while others may want to zoom in on certain parts of the subject. At the end of the day if you achieve the kind of shots that you want, thats all it matters.
    yea... while macro lenses have a strict definition, i think the term macro photography can be applied rather loosely.


    P.S- come to think of it,the definition of macro lenses is applied rather loosely too. I mean...look at Sigma's line of 'macro' lenses!

  6. #6

    Default Re: How do you consider a shots is macro?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daedalus Trent View Post
    yea... while macro lenses have a strict definition, i think the term macro photography can be applied rather loosely.


    P.S- come to think of it,the definition of macro lenses is applied rather loosely too. I mean...look at Sigma's line of 'macro' lenses!
    But then very strictly speaking, 'macro' lenses are defined to reproduce an image at equal to or greater than 1:1 magnification. Nowadays the use of 'macro' to describe close-focusing lenses (which should be better described as 'micro', Nikon style) is very unscientific. IMO 'macro' as an adjective should only be applied to optics and not to photographs. After all, optics is an exact science; photography is an art-form.
    Last edited by astrise; 16th September 2008 at 05:00 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •