SX2002
Loc: Adelaide, South Australia
You certainly don't need a telephoto lens for a close-up...I use all sorts of lenses...Some of my Moon shots I do consider close-ups..what I get is a much closer view than with my naked eye, for that reason I consider them close-ups...
This topic is probably in the wrong section anyway...?
Linda From Maine wrote:
😇
But this is a big moon. LOL
SX2002
Loc: Adelaide, South Australia
Close-Up Photography
The term ‘close-up photography’ has no scientific definition. It is generally understood to mean any photo that shows the subject closer and in more detail than we’re used to seeing in everyday life.
It can be applied to a tightly cropped head shot, a flower stamen or even the moon. It’s not so much about the nearness of the subject as it is about the field of view.
Obviously, we can’t get significantly closer to the moon by moving the camera. But for small terrestrial objects, getting closer to the subject is the crux of the matter.
As we move closer to a subject, the image on the sensor gets larger.
SX2002 wrote:
This topic is probably in the wrong section anyway...?
Did you read my responses to burkphoto and gvarner on page 1 that elaborated on the opening comments? What better place to discuss than among those who make these kinds of images every day?
There's evidence to suggest that many of the loudest voices in main discussion forum don't actually own cameras
You're going to have to be a bit more specific than that, John 🤓
Are you praising my award-worthy photos, the discussion of how to make a successful photo, my putdown of main discussion bullies? A comment from someone else?
Linda From Maine wrote:
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.
When that situation arises we have a teaching and learning moment. These moments are rare and rarer still when an example is involved.
Everyone can learn something.
John_F wrote:
...Everyone can learn something.
All the time
But landscape and close-up have no absolute definitions. A lot of subjective decision-making would have to be made by moderators.
I piggy-backed onto gvarner's question merely wanting to demonstrate a focal length comparison, as well as support Dixiegirl's point about the importance of composition, subject, light and use of color.
Thanks for commenting!
Linda From Maine wrote:
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
I am expanding on gvarner's topic url=
https://www... (
show quote)
I would consider any photo taken from a perspective closer than one would normally view the subject to be a "closeup".
jackm1943 wrote:
I would consider any photo taken from a perspective closer than one would normally view the subject to be a "closeup".
That's pretty subjective too. For example, I bet my "normal" view of spiders is much closer than someone with arachnophobia
Linda From Maine wrote:
That's pretty subjective too. For example, I bet my "normal" view of spiders is much closer than someone with arachnophobia
Ha. Then you have to get really, really close for a "closeup".
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.