www.photomacrography.net :: View topic - For beginners to macrophotography.
www.photomacrography.net Forum Index
An online community dedicated to the practices of photomacrography, close-up and macro photography, and photomicrography.
Photomacrography Front Page Amateurmicrography Front Page
Old Forums/Galleries
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
For beginners to macrophotography.
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Macro & Microscopy Articles
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DaveW



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 1702
Location: Nottingham, UK

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 4:29 am    Post subject: For beginners to macrophotography. Reply with quote

I don't know if this is the correct forum to post links to articles on other sites? But if any beginner wanders onto this site a good introductory article to all the bits and bobs, like close-up lenses, bellows, coupling rings etc you can strap onto your lens and camera to get closer can be found in non technical language in the link below. If you click on the links at the bottom of the first page it will take you to the next pages:-

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/closeup-macro.html

DaveW
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cyclops



Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Posts: 2931
Location: North East of England

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 4:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks an interesting site-its in my Favourites now!

BTW shouldnt this be be called Photomacrography? Think
_________________
Canon 30D | Canon IXUS 265HS | Cosina 100mm f3.5 macro | EF 75-300 f4.5-5.6 USM III | EF 50 f1.8 II | Slik 88 tripod | XSP-13A Student monocular scope
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
DaveW



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 1702
Location: Nottingham, UK

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, it should be Photomacrography according to Lester Lefkowitz and Kodak, but I have now given up trying to convert the masses!

According to them:-

Close-up Photography = photographing subjects at between 1:10 and 1:1 (usually called Macrophotography by the photo press!)

Photomacrography = photography using the camera and usually extension from 1:1 upwards. (still called Macrophotography by the photo press!)

Photomicrography = photography through the microscope.

Macrophotography = making very large photographs e.g. advertising hoardings or large display photographs.

Microphotography = making very small photographs e.g. microfilm or microdots so beloved by spy writers in James Bond type novels.

However I once explained this to a photo journal editor, obviously just a general photographer, and he claimed everybody in the industry knew it was Macrophotography not Photomacrography or they would all be calling it that.

As I say, I now simply use the language of the masses unless I am dealing with you lot that know the difference!

DaveW
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cyclops



Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Posts: 2931
Location: North East of England

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the problem is that macro photography,as two words, refers to a genuine term for photographs taken with macro gear. But when its spelt as one word,macrophotography, it is something entirely different.
_________________
Canon 30D | Canon IXUS 265HS | Cosina 100mm f3.5 macro | EF 75-300 f4.5-5.6 USM III | EF 50 f1.8 II | Slik 88 tripod | XSP-13A Student monocular scope
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
DaveW



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 1702
Location: Nottingham, UK

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Macro of course simply means large, so whether you write it as one word or two it means "large photography" but conversely Photomacrography means "photographing large". The trouble is both terms could apply to photographing small items much larger than they are, or making large photographs! Again as micro means small microphotography it could mean photographing small objects (e.g. through a microscope) or making small photographs.

Neither term really defines what it really does, hence the confusion, therefore I suppose we have to go on convention and how the words were originally defined. I am afraid I do not know when both first appeared and who originally coined them as I do not have the Oxford English Dictionary, which usually lists their first recorded usage and the meaning their originator placed upon them.

But again do you define the terms as the minority scientific community does, or what we would consider their misuse by the much larger professional and amateur photographic community. English is a living language and the meaning of words changes through common usage over time!

One disadvantage this site has is that the average close-up photographer has never heard of photomacrography, so they put in "macrophotography" into their search engines to find information and only get sites using the term macrophotography, missing all the more technical ones they may be really after listed under photomacrography.

DaveW
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike B in OKlahoma



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 1048
Location: Oklahoma City

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Complicating the matter further, our friends on the dark side at Nikon use "micro" to describe what most of the rest of the world thinks of as their macro lenses!

:-)
_________________
Mike Broderick
Oklahoma City, OK, USA

Constructive critiques of my pictures, and reposts in this forum for purposes of critique are welcome

"I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul....My mandate includes weird bugs."
--Calvin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaveW



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 1702
Location: Nottingham, UK

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reason for that is they already had Macro Nikkors, which are similar to microscope lenses for high magnification photography when they introduced their close-up lenses, so could not use the term "macro" like other manufacturers and had to settle for "micro" instead. See:-

http://www.macrolenses.de/start.php?lang=en

DaveW
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 17395
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Even further complicating the problem is that the classic definitions no longer make sense (if they ever did!).

Consider...

If "macro" means that the lens magnifies 1:1 or more, then:
  • An 8"x10" view camera imaging my entire hand is "macro", while
  • a 5x7mm point-and-shoot imaging a honeybee is not.
With all due respect to tradition, this is nonsense!

The physics of light is such that sensor size makes very little difference in the photos that you get -- which means that lens magnification also makes very little difference. What really matters is total magnification, and that's pretty much it. Making a same-size, same-resolution image of a 10mm specimen is almost equally difficult regardless of whether you're using 4x5 film, 35mm, 1.6 crop-factor DSLR, or compact point-and-shoot.

Personally, I'll be very happy to argue for some definition like "macro means field width <= 50 mm". (That's sort of an average 1:1 on 35-mm and 2-1/4" square, rounded to a nice even number.) Leave lens magnification out of the definition entirely. Having it in there is, um, "unnatural", despite being traditional. Very Happy

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Cyclops



Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Posts: 2931
Location: North East of England

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 3:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In my mini oxford dictionary for macro it simply says "large, opposite micro". Funny i always thought macro meant small and micro meant very small!
_________________
Canon 30D | Canon IXUS 265HS | Cosina 100mm f3.5 macro | EF 75-300 f4.5-5.6 USM III | EF 50 f1.8 II | Slik 88 tripod | XSP-13A Student monocular scope
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
DaveW



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 1702
Location: Nottingham, UK

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Used in our sense "Macro" is supposed to indicate a larger than life sized image of a small object.

Some claim "macrophotography" or "photomacrography" only starts past 1:1 when the image on the film/sensor is larger than the subject itself. From 1:10 to 1:1 they claim it is simply close-up photography.

DaveW
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cyclops



Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Posts: 2931
Location: North East of England

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DaveW wrote:
Used in our sense "Macro" is supposed to indicate a larger than life sized image of a small object.

Some claim "macrophotography" or "photomacrography" only starts past 1:1 when the image on the film/sensor is larger than the subject itself. From 1:10 to 1:1 they claim it is simply close-up photography.

DaveW


And that is the old standard reference point that should hold good today. Macro is a photographic term and so lifesize, or 1:1 should remain as meaning the image on the film/sensor/biochip/whatever is the same size as the actual image.
_________________
Canon 30D | Canon IXUS 265HS | Cosina 100mm f3.5 macro | EF 75-300 f4.5-5.6 USM III | EF 50 f1.8 II | Slik 88 tripod | XSP-13A Student monocular scope
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 17395
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cyclops wrote:
And that is the old standard reference point that should hold good today.

Why?

I'm really puzzled by the insistence in some circles to rigidly define "macro" as lens magnification 1:1 or higher.

If I may be permitted to quote from one of the classic books in the field, Kodak's publication N-12, "Close-up Photography & Photomacrography":

Quote:
Hence, to distinguish the two techniques in this book, the distinction is made on the basis of equipment and manipulation, rather than upon magnification. ... Fundamentally, a photomacrographic subject is one that would be visually examined with a loupe or with a hand lens. [pg.5]

Back in the days of sheet film and contact printing, it made a lot of sense to define macro as 1:1 or higher. 1:1 was simultaneously the point where
  • The image became at least life size as viewed (and incidentally, on the film), and
  • Lenses worked better if they were "reversed".
Fortunately, photographic equipment has evolved far beyond the contact print.

Not so fortunately, the terminology has lagged behind the equipment.

Modern lenses like the Canon MP-E 65 now make it possible to shoot a cluster of ant pupae at 5:1 with little more challenge than shooting a bowl of grapes at 1:10 using a different lens. I don't have an MP-E 65, but I do have a bellows and a small set of Olympus "Auto-Macro" lenses for it, that in fact will take my DSLR continuously from 1:infinity to about 12:1 with essentially no change in setup. I can also stick a loupe in front of my Canon SD700 point-and-shoot, and get exactly the same photograph at 1:1 that my DSLR would give at 3:1, or my old film SLR's at 5:1.

So what's the magic of 1:1?

Of course there are some are extra challenges in photographing small things. Photomacrographers know them well: shallow DOF and diffraction blur.

However -- and I keep emphasizing this point because it's really important -- those problems are entirely due to the absolute size of the subject and the corresponding total magnification of the final image. To a very good approximation, lens magnification simply does not matter.

I don't know about other folks, but it bothers me to see definitions based on criteria that don't matter, while ignoring other criteria that are critical.

But I remain open to persuasion. So please, persuade me.

What's your best argument for defining "macro" as 1:1 lens magnification? Confused Think

No fair passing the buck here -- I'm looking for some argument a lot stronger than "because <somebody else> said so". Very Happy

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DaveW



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 1702
Location: Nottingham, UK

PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As an old cactophile friend of mine used to say "a name is just a handle", but then he would complain if modern taxonomists tried to change the ones he had grown used to!

Really we are simply after a term that communicates to others the magnification range we are working at, be it on the film/sensor or final magnification on print or screen.

Macro simply means large and Micro small, how you apply it to photographic terms is a matter of opinion and general usage.

DaveW
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cyclops



Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Posts: 2931
Location: North East of England

PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rik, i just think its a good standard to use. To me 1:1 meaning the image you see is the same size as the object makes perfect sense.And easy to adopt. You look at the image on the screen/negative and you know that thats the actual size of the object,simple!
_________________
Canon 30D | Canon IXUS 265HS | Cosina 100mm f3.5 macro | EF 75-300 f4.5-5.6 USM III | EF 50 f1.8 II | Slik 88 tripod | XSP-13A Student monocular scope
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
DaveW



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 1702
Location: Nottingham, UK

PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 4:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The image on the negative or sensor may be 1:1 but that does not mean it's 1:1 on the camera viewing screen, this may magnify it. although it should still show the full frame.

DaveW
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Macro & Microscopy Articles All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group