How do you consider a shots is macro?


Status
Not open for further replies.

besh

New Member
May 8, 2005
494
0
0
#1
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..
 

Galdor

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2006
9,544
0
0
Planet Gaia
s105.photobucket.com
#2
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.
 

Oct 29, 2007
91
0
0
Western Singapore
#4
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.
 

Apr 15, 2008
2,291
0
0
Singapore, east-ish
#5
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... :think: 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! :bsmilie:
 

astrise

New Member
Jan 20, 2007
122
0
0
Lorong Chuan
www.qxcg.net
#6
yea... :think: 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! :bsmilie:
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:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom