'macro' as 'more detail than unaided eyes'

A forum to ask questions, post setups, and generally discuss anything having to do with photomacrography and photomicroscopy.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23564
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Here is the reply from OED. I found it both gracious and amusing. :D
Thank you for your message, and for these interesting citations. I
shall add them to the OED files, so that they can be considered by the
editors in due course. The letter P, with its many scientific and
medical prefixes, has proved something of a lexical labyrinth, and we
are glad to be entering the simpler pastures of Q.

We are grateful to you for taking the time and trouble to send this
material.

Margot Charlton, OED
--Rik

MacroLuv
Posts: 1964
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:36 pm
Location: Croatia

Post by MacroLuv »

Every time I take my eye glasses I am in the (photo)macro(graphy) world because I see small objects better than unaided eye. Right? :lol:
Subjective definition? Subjective / objective / scientific definition differences? :-k
The meaning of beauty is in sharing with others.

P.S.
Noticing of my "a" and "the" and other grammar
errors are welcome. :D

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23564
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Nikola,

I think you are mostly teasing me, but I will take your question seriously.

You are exploring the very edge of the definition. I guess the answer depends on the glasses, and on what your eyes do to start with.

Many years ago, I went to a dentist who routinely put on a pair of glasses that were essentially short-focus 3X telescopes, like the "Binocular Galilean Systems for Near" sold here. I'd say that those glasses put him pretty clearly into the "macro" range.

On the other hand, all of my glasses do not.

I am naturally nearsighted, with a correction around -2.00D (diopter). But I am getting old, and my eyes have lost most of their ability to adjust focus. So my everyday glasses are bifocals. They have a -2.00D distance correction, with a +1.75D addition for reading. Adding the numbers, that still leaves a -0.25D total correction -- putting on those glasses actually moves my closest focusing distance outward by a bit! For very closeup work, like mounting insects, I use a pair of +1.25D glasses. That brings my closest focusing distance inward by quite a bit, so indeed I see more detail than without them. But even with those glasses, my closest focusing distance is still a bit over 10 inches -- no better than the standard specification that gives magnification = 10 inches divided by focal length (25mm loupe = 10X).

So I don't see any way that I could claim that my glasses put me into the "macro" range. I need a magnifying glass to do that.

Is the definition subjective versus objective, or is it just fuzzy? I think the answer is "both". I have come to prefer defining "macro" in terms of detail revealed in the final display, while other people focus on the size ratio between the subject and the first focused image. That choice is subjective. But the definition is also fuzzy -- to my mind, revealing 10X more detail is strongly macro, revealing 1.5X more detail is weakly macro, and revealing 1.01X more detail would be "who cares?"

--Rik

MacroLuv
Posts: 1964
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:36 pm
Location: Croatia

Post by MacroLuv »

Rik,

Yes, I like to tease occasionally (I just can't help myself O:) ) but never with bad intentions.
I just found yours topics and answers amusing, inspiring and instructive so I provoke to get more. :D
I think it is nice to "shake" our minds from time to time considering various possibilities and looking at things from different angles.
The meaning of beauty is in sharing with others.

P.S.
Noticing of my "a" and "the" and other grammar
errors are welcome. :D

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic