As you’ve perhaps noticed I’ve been photographing spring flowers. Most of these photo have been taken using a “Macro” lens (Nikon 105mm VR macro). However, that doesn’t make the photos macro shots. I’m thinking, what makes a photo a “macro photograph?”
Here’s what I found according to Wikipedia:
In recent years, the term macro has been used in marketing material to mean being able to focus on a subject close enough so that when a regular 6×4 inch (15×10 cm) print is made, the image is life-size or larger. This requires a magnification ratio of only approximately 1:4, more easily attainable by lens makers.
That’s a pretty loose definition but at least it’s defined. I’ve also seen the term super-macro used to describe a markedly higher level of magnification and detail but I’ve not been able to locate a definition or standard.
How do you define what is or isn’t “macro” photography? For example, I’d call the orchid photograph below a close-up rather then macro. Printed on 4″x6″ it probably wouldn’t be life-size.
Now if one of the orchids was the full frame that would probably be a macro shot–very subjective. Anyone got better metrics or thoughts on/for macros?
Over 30,000 species of orchids inhabit every corner of the planet except for the driest deserts and Antarctica. The orchids above are frequently referred to as a “Phal” (Phalaenopsis) and are also known as the “moth orchid.” They are popular, easy to grow and can continue to bloom for months. They can be grown under fluorescent lights.
Very interesting about the definitions of macro etc. This is a fine close up. The variety of colors in this orchid are remarkable. Fine image.
I have seen it defined as anything 1:2 or smaller for a “true macro lens”, this is the first I have seen reference to 1:4. To me, that magnification is a “closeup” – similar to how I would define the nice orchid shot you have here.