To iiioloiii,
The best answer is already in this thread. Look thru carefully all the flower pics again and tell me which one reveals the subject's (flower) details. The key word here is DETAILS."
You did not mention anything about the key word "DETAILS" in your original post where you disqualified all but one of the pictures as being true macro shots. I believe Blitz and the rest of the readers deserve more clarification from you to support your claim. That is why I asked how you differentiate between Macro and close-up.
In your opinion then, how much detail is required, in order for a picture to be qualified as a macro shot?
Or, are you actually refering to the magnification level (maybe you did not realise)?
I did some search and come across this differentiation between Macro and Close-up in
www.dpreview.com:
"In strict photographic terms the word Macro means the optical ability to produce a 1:1 or higher magnification of an object on the film negative, that is get very close (not always physically) to a very small object (a bit like a microscope does, but obviously not as much). The second type of lens is a close-up lens, normally anything less than 1:2 is seen as close-up (rather than Macro).
On digital cameras there is often a Macro Focus mode, this switches the auto focus system to attempt to focus on subjects much closer to the lens to take interesting shots of small objects. The macro abilities of a digital camera vary, and most should be ashamed of calling the focus mode "macro" (it should strictly be called "close up"). We measure macro ability (of cameras with non-interchangeable lenses) in our reviews as the ability of the lens to get the best possible frame coverage.
The clear outright winner (without add-on lenses) are Nikon's Coolpix 950 and 990 both of which can produce amazingly close shots which can clearly be called macro. The 990 for example can get close enough to fill it's 2048 x 1536 frame with just 0.7" of an object.. Very close"
So you are right to say that the pictures are not really macros. I believe Blitz uses an Oly C2040Z. The CCD size is 0.3 by 0.4 inches (0.5 inch diagonal). For the yellow flower picture to be qualified as a macro shot, following the 1:1 magnification definition, the actual mesaurement of the part of the flower captured should be less than 10.16mm.
Becareful with your advice. I'm not so sure how many members here can agree with you on this. You might want to seek professional opinion on this or read and find out more about macro photography first. What you said here can be true in most types of photography except macro and tight glamour photography. And btw you've forgotten to mention (or perhaps didn't realise) the most important element in photography...........Lights
I am always careful about what I say. And I still stand firm on my statement that Macros and Closeups are not just about getting close, if your intentions are to take a visually appealing picture.
I would like to read about how, in macro and tight glamour photography, getting close is all there is to making a good picture. Please provide a reference.
By the way, what is tight glamour photography?
Photography is "The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces" (American Heritage Dictionary). Light is the basic element of photography. Non of the other elements that I have listed can exisit wthout light. So mentioning light is like saying you need sound to make good music - redundant. So I have not "forgotton to mention" light, and I am well aware that it is the basic elements of photography.