The term "macro" is arbitrary, and in many ways subjective. A 1:4 shot of a butterfly that fills the whole frame will almost always be called a "macro." But a 1:4 shot of a little ant that is lost in the frame, would usually not be called a macro - even though it is the same magnification. So - I think of a macro as "something small magnified till it becomes the primary object in/ subject of the composition."
I used to use the term "micro" to describe shots at greater than 2x magnification, but that seemed to imply that they were shot through a microscope (something I haven't gotten around to doing yet.) So after a brief period of calling snow crystal shots (taken at 5x - 10x life sized) "micro photos" I went back to using "macro" for the sake of clarity. (And as someone pointed out - a micro photo is a really tiny photo - so my terminology was way off..) - MCC PS: I'd consider your photo of the tape measure to be a macro photo. Jens Bladt wrote: > I have photographed my Stanley measuring device with a > Pentax K10D and a Tamron SP 2.5/90mm lens - at closest possible focusing > distance; 0.39 m. Is this macro? > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/477746425/ > > Maybe not. My sensor is 23.5mm. This image covers appr. 47mm. This means > it's almost accurately half natural size - 50% on the sensor. > Isn't macro photography supposed to be enlarging the subject? > On a computer screen my 3872 pixel would look like 1366 mm. That's an > enlarement of appr. 2900% (almost 30 times). > But enlarging the copies (negs) is not really macro, is it? > > Jens Bladt > > http://www.jensbladt.dk > -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, Michigan www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
