Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I am expanding on gvarner's topic here.

One definition I like: The idea of a close-up is to make the viewer ‘feel’ the subject is right up close. From this article.

The article goes on to explain that while true macro usually (always?) requires using a macro 1:1 lens, a close-up can be taken with a telephoto. The first photo below is at 24 mm with an M4/3 camera, making it equivalent to 48 mm with a full frame camera. #2 is zoom fully extended on a Canon sx50 super-zoom bridge camera (and cropped). Sometimes it's best to keep your distance

(Download)


(Download)

Cwilson341 Loc: Central Florida

I like the definition you linked. It pretty much parallels my thinking. I don't think it necessarily needs to be defined. It is largely a matter of how the viewer feels about the subject. Is a mountain that fills the frame a close up? In one sense, yes, but in another, no.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Thanks for your input. There’s a lot of different opinions on this on the UHH Closeup Forum, about what constitutes a closeup versus a macro shot. All of it seems to be variations on a theme but people get pretty dug-in on their opinions. It would make more sense if they settle on calling it closeup/macro. But I think that the macro enthusiasts would strongly object. 🥴🥴

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I’ve always considered Closeup to mean between about 1:10 and 1:1; Macro as 1:1 down to 10:1; Micro as more than 10x Magnification. That’s really arbitrary, but a fairly common usage of terms.

The problem is that those designations reference the size of the sensor! 1:1 on 35mm/full frame is 1:4 on Micro 4/3... where 1:1 on Micro 4/3 is 4:1 on full frame. (I can copy a quarter of a 35mm slide with my 30mm 1:1 macro on Micro 4/3.)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Good point!

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Sorry Bill, my eyes crossed before I could finish your explanation

My point in posting photos shot at two very different focal lengths - if you read gvarner's topic, and especially Dixiegirl's comment here - is that you don't need a special lens to do close-up photography, and that there is so much that should be considered aside from gear if you are trying to produce something memorable.

This topic is in Close-Up Forum, so for more on why I posted, please read my reply to gvarner below.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Macro seems more suited to strict guidelines. Keep in mind that any focal length on any lens can capture a close-up. It's your story to tell.

Donna and Earl took over after a contentious first year (more?) with the original moderators. They have nurtured this section to be one of the most popular volunteer-moderated forums!

When Landscape Forum was created in December, the moderators deliberately left the definition loose. I would not want to be the person who deletes someone's topic because it doesn't meet a stricter definition, either there or here in close-up.

Forget percentages and gear and shoot for composition, story, light, color, impact. Here is a short, informative demo on effective use of color, and here is the last of the four-part series on light from For Your Consideration last year.

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

I say shoot the image as you like. Crop it as you like. Doesn't really matter what it's called "technically". Macro lenses are great, I own one. But I don't take every close-up with it. Just my opinion.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

If that's what you were getting at, I get it, and I agree. Definitions and rules just get in the way of results sometimes. Some people (the engineer mindset) want to be precise about them for specific needs. I get that, but that's not my game.

Others are obliquely interested in definitions as sort of a guide to potential experience. We want a point of reference.

Others just want a general idea... so we can break as many rules as make sense to break!

No, you don't need a special lens for close-ups. Macro and Micro photography (photomicrography) are special cases that probably require special equipment. But regular close-ups (filling enough of the frame with the subject so you can see details) can be made with almost any equipment that will focus closely enough.

For 40 years, I've kept a set of +1, +2, and +4 diopter filter-like attachments for casual work. Sometimes, they still do the trick for me, although I have a mid-1960s era 55mm f/3.5 Micro Nikkor and a 30mm f/2.8 Lumix Macro (both used for roughly the same applications, although the Lumix gets closer). I've also used a 60mm enlarging lens on a bellows for slide copying and photographing coins and stamps, although that was work I did in the early 1980s.

But going way back... I did close-up work with 50mm and 135mm lenses on my Nikon FTn. Any lens that will get close enough to tell the story is fine with me.

Forget technology, though, and forget rules. The 75% rule is an arbitrary guideline. FAR more important are the things in Dixiegirl's comment... For a photograph to work, everything has to come together to communicate the message or affect a feeling.

For me, when reviewing a body of work in a book or museum, there are always just three questions: Does it grab me and hold my attention? Does it tell me a story or teach me something? Does it move me? Answer YES on all counts, and we have a photograph. Maybe it's a close-up.

That's why I have never entered a single photo *contest*. The judging body usually wants to get all specific about rules and such... They're understandably useful for those who are in the basic learning stages, but eventually, rules tend to become restrictive. (Would you rather get a high score, or make a visual statement?)

Are these close-ups? Are they photographs? I don't care, but I like them. I used my 30mm macro for both.

(Download)


(Download)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I like them too

I very much appreciate your coming back to this thread, Bill, and offering excellent observations and food for thought. I chuckled over the "close enough to see detail" part of the definition (which I first read via Google early this morning), because some of us enjoy the softer, more interpretive pov

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Nice. There certainly is detail there, but it is dreamy soft. It's a nice effect.

Sharpness and blurriness are just two tools on a continuum. Whichever you use to make your point is valid if it says what you want. Part of that gestalt... (the whole is greater than the sum of its parts).

DOOK Loc: Maclean, Australia

What is a close up? I think that there are many shades of gray here & common sense should prevail. Everyone's idea is different. This is just my opinion & not necessarily the rules (actual, or inferred) of the forum, but the assumption that using a telephoto lens automatically qualifies the shot as a close up is held by some. Examples might be... a deer taken with a 400mm lens from 100 yards away, or the moon taken with a 300mm lens--are these really close ups? I think not, but this is JMHO.

Earl.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Thanks for commenting, Earl. As for the moon, guess I wasn't totally accurate when I told gvarner any focal length could produce a close-up. Maybe amend that to read "on our planet?"

DOOK Loc: Maclean, Australia

Noted--thanks Linda.

Dixiegirl Loc: Alabama gulf coast

Oh we can't do that either, Linda and Earl! That would eliminate a little moon in the background of a closeup!