Linary Loc: UK

Prg opened a thread regarding bugs and macro photography. I do not wish to hijack the thread, hence I will ask my question(s) here.

Firstly, macrophotography has some rather vague definitions, the popular one on the Hog is:
"the size of the subject on the negative or image sensor is life size or greater".

Another definition:
"Macro photography (or photomacrography[1] or macrography,[2] and sometimes macrophotography[3]), is extreme close-up photography, usually of very small subjects and living organisms like insects, in which the size of the subject in the photograph is greater than life size (though macrophotography technically refers to the art of making very large photographs."

The article in Wikipedia goes on to say that nowadays a "true" macro photograph will have a vertical subject height of 24mm or less.

Both definitions are quoted from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography

I am questioning the relevance of macro photography using the first definition.

If you are lucky enough to own a sheet film camera 5" x 4" or greater, then no problem, the world is your oyster, but suppose your camera has only a tiny sensor, the subjects must be equally tiny to fit on, hence the great number of insects cropping up in the world of macro.

With modern cameras and lenses, with a few exceptions, the same photographs can be produced by using telephoto lenses and cropping. I was recently tasked to photograph some industrial diamonds; my immediate thoughts were to dust off the extention tubes, use the macro lens, set up the light tent and lights. In practise I was foiled by the lighting problems so used longer lens and cropped in PP. Fewer DoF and shadow problems.

What I want to know is what drives a photographer to shoot "true" macro -
Is it because of the challenge?
Is it because of the required skills?
Is it because no other method will give the same results?
Is it something else?

In no way am I disparaging macro photography or its proponents - I know the skill level alone with lighting, focus stacking etc. leaves me out in the cold.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I'd say all of the above plus the ability to see things that one normally would never see without magnifying the subject as much...

One Rude Dawg Loc: Athol, ID

If you don't like it don't do it, pretty simple.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

Always accommodating UHH has separate sections for "True Macro Photography" and "Close-Up Photography". If you are intrigued you can subscribe to either or both at no additional charge. /Ralph

BBurns Loc: South Bay, California

I won't get into the semantics of the various labels you mention or being perfect in 1:1 magnification for scientific documentation. That is not what I am in it for. Been there, done that.
I agree with Scott. I am 73, been interested with nature, small things and bugs since I could crawl. I began to mess with photography at around age 7.
I was fascinated by the wonders of nature and wanted to show others the beauty I saw. That which they passed by every day, unaware of its existence.

I was a poster in the thread you mentioned. It somehow got lost that the original question was, "Did you ever notice most macro pictures feature bugs?" I posted a flower to show an alternate subject.

Linary Loc: UK

Nothing to do with not liking it, just intrigued by the why. (Same questions could apply to why use film these days, but I already know the answer to that one.)

Linary Loc: UK

Close up Photography I do look at quite often, True Macro not so much - too many bugs that do no good at all to my phobia.

Linary Loc: UK

Thank you for such a concise answer - appreciated.

Linary Loc: UK

I for one appreciated the non-bug photo. (I hate close-ups of a spider's facial hair!) If the coin in the photo was approx 20mm as one poster mentioned, the flower from tip to toe would be about 25-26mm - too big for "True" macro photography and get it all into shot. If you had squeezed the flower into the shot and printed, how would anyone know how small it was - the coin or something similar is necessary to give the viewer a perception of size, something often lacking in macro shots.

Your photograph illustrates how I think this type of photography should go, even if it is labelled as close up or extreme close up.

mrpentaxk5ii

You can use a macro lense to shoot more than bugs, a macro will let you focus much closer than a normal lense. I have one macro lens, its a Pentax 50mm F 2.8 macro lens, I will post a few photos taken with it. A macro lense by design is sharper edge to edge when photographing flat objects such as coins.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Linary Loc: UK

I am well aware of the benefits of using a macro lens in a similar way to your excellent photos; the sharpness and detail really shine. My problem with using one (close to the subject) is one of lighting. I tend to get too many shadows in the wrong places. I find setting up such lighting a real chore. When I was much younger I would spend a great deal of time and take great care to get everything just right - I was using a 35mm film camera with bellows and or extension tubes and a (non-macro) 50mm lens. As I got older, time seemed more important to me and with my other pursuits (sailing and long distance cycling) stealing those precious hours, my set up times got shorter and more rudimentary.

Now retired from sailing and cycling, I engross myself in photography and recently was asked to photograph groups of industrial diamonds. These things vary in size from a millimetre to 4-5mm. Of course they don't need the professionalism that goes to jewellry diamonds (a whole different ballgame), but did need some decent close ups. I cannot post these images because the copyright is now owned by the ad agency who commissioned the shoot.

To get the lighting right, I found by increasing the camera/subject distance significantly and using a telephoto lens, I could get acceptable images. Perhaps not as sharp as the hairs on your cats, but acceptable.

jcboy3

You can take a photo with a 16mp full frame and 16mp micro four thirds camera, with the subject filling the frame, and one will be "macro" and the other will be "close-up". It's a distinction without merit.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Linary there are quite a few high end commercial photographers in the UK...
They are seriously focused on money... and likely don't even give a passing thought about semantics...

Here is a London based photographic studio which is at the zenith of the larger than life size aspect of our craft...
http://www.hartleystudios.com/photography/
Their billing rate is literately off the scale...

My sincere advice to you is get off UHH and into the commercial side of the image equation...
Begin sampling the work of outstanding commercial shooters in the UK.
Here is where you'll likely find the knowledge and wisdom you are seeking...

I wish you well on your journey Linary

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Right! And I think the challenge of being able to produce a good image is part of it.

docdish Loc: Saint Petersburg, FL

I think most of us are on a quest to capture as close to "perfect" images as possible. The only thing that separates us is how close or far we are from the subject.