75% rule equates to …?
Jun 13, 2019 13:23:46 #
Jun 13, 2019 13:25:57 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
I'd worry more about if the subject is in sharp focus and highly detailed. 
Jun 13, 2019 13:28:08 #
Dixiegirl wrote:
Whatever happened to composition, subject, use of color, image quality and so forth? Although not a very popular notion these days, there is still way more that constitutes a good image than sharpness and detail whether it be macro, closeup or landscape.
Jun 13, 2019 13:33:39 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
It's one of the stickied topics in this section: the rule used by original close-up forum moderators as to what defines a close-up photo for the section (subject fills 75% of the frame): https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-133507-1.html
I faintly member this original 2013 discussion. The macro section was so strict, I didn't / wouldn't post there even if my image was 1:1 onto the sensor, a dubious measurement given the amount of processing / cropping that can be performed. Asking people to fill the frame in images presented into a specialized subgroup, that's an expectation I can support / adhere to.
Jun 13, 2019 13:41:04 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
In my own topic here, I mentioned to gvarner that I wouldn't want to be the one deleting other people's topics because they didn't meet a strict definition (now, rude comments or insults on the other hand...I have no problem erasing in PP Forum I faintly member this original 2013 discussion. The macro section was so strict, I didn't wouldn't post there even if my image was 1:1 onto the sensor, a dubious measurement given the amount of processing / cropping that can be performed. Asking people to fill the frame in images presented into a specialized subgroup, that's an expectation I can support / adhere to.
).I used Landscape Forum as an example of providing a broad definition rather than restrictive.
With both Close-up and Landscape, if someone had their topic deleted, they would probably just post in Gallery from then on. Given that volunteer-moderated sections are invisible to new users, and given the rocky start to Close-Up, Donna and Earl have done a fantastic job with keeping interest in this section.
Jun 13, 2019 14:16:51 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
I faintly member this original 2013 discussion. The macro section was so strict, I didn't / wouldn't post there even if my image was 1:1 onto the sensor, a dubious measurement given the amount of processing / cropping that can be performed. Asking people to fill the frame in images presented into a specialized subgroup, that's an expectation I can support / adhere to.
Things have mellowed in the macro section, why not try again.............we are a helpful lot and want everyone to succeed in their choice of type and interests of photography
Jun 13, 2019 14:48:43 #
napabob wrote:
Things have mellowed in the macro section, why not try again.............we are a helpful lot and want everyone to succeed in their choice of type and interests of photography
I admire the skill needed for the super close-up / macro of the truly small subject that actually would fit within the confines of a 35mm frame / sensor. I probably even admire a section gendarme trying to limit the content to what fits the purpose of the group. The methods of policing were the turn off. Personally, I'm more of a close-up guy in level of effort and results.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.