I shoot a lot of macro shots...and very few of them are even actually 1:1 - and none are ever "larger than life size".

On a 1:1 macro lens, it would require tubes or a magnifier on the end to get something "larger than life size" - i.e. 1+x:1. (1 in this case being "life size" and the +x being some increment larger)

Maybe redefine? I don't think you've asked for what you want or expect.

(edit - had the +x on the wrong side of the ratio to have the point make any sense)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

By the original definition, a macro photograph is one in which the size of the subject on the negative or image sensor is life size or greater. However, in some uses it refers to a finished photograph of a subject at greater than life size.

Our category says "Macros (extreme closeups, larger than life size)" and that seems right.

The wikipedia actually supports my original stance if you read the whole thing (and the footnoted article that supports "finished").

I don't think you understood my point - nor what you read or quoted (especially the notion of "finished").

To wit, on my 24" monitor, this shot is "larger than life sized" by a factor of at least two - perhaps three - even at the 1000px width. On my phone, however, it's no where near life sized, let alone larger.



It's neither a macro nor an extreme close up by anyones' standards. Yet fits the bill by definition. Again, I don't think you've asked for what you want or expect.

Please click on the thumbnail of this popular PD macro. If this bee is not larger than life-size, I'm never going outside again.



I don't think anyone else is confused by the wording of our macro definition.

Well, zuzu, that would bee a good reason to not go outside. When I clicked on that picture it scared the living daylights out of me.

For macros, does the subject of the photograph matter? Like could it be a macro of a leaf, or an insect, or even a knitted tree sweater?

That's a great shot Zuzu.

But it doesn't change the fact that the bee in mine is "larger than life sized" by at least a factor of two when viewed on a normal monitor (that "finished" thing again).

Also, I'm not confused by your wording. I understand it perfectly. That's what prompted my post. And my responses. Whether I'm the only one who has pointed it out has zero bearing on the point I'm making. Either the anemones belong or they don't, by definition. The definition decides. Not consensus.

In other words, by your definition (as explained by Dave), that shot of the anemones belongs in the macro category. And if you're looking for shots more similar to your bee than to mine, you've not asked for what you want - because they both meet the definition perfectly.

When someone offers a suggestion, you can either get defensive, or try to understand what he/she is trying to say. And I'm saying that the anemone shot falls under the umbrella of what you've asked for. I shoot mostly close-ups. It's what I'm good at. What I understand. In fact, I've contributed a good bit to the site on the subject:

Rube Goldberg, Macro Photography, and You: Close-Ups on a Budget https://garden.org/ideas/view/... - a multi-paged garden idea - this one is epic, showing several ways to get legit 1:1 or closer for very little money
The thread "Simple close-up DSLR photography...Point-and-Shoot Simple" in Photography Tips & Techniques forum - a small tutorial in the photo forum
The thread "The Classifieds, $35.00, and closeups (or the end of a notsosane obsession?)" in Photography Tips & Techniques forum - a thread about getting very close with a cheapie, 2nd-hand camera
The thread "Budget close-ups - Adding a flash to the mix" in Photography Tips & Techniques forum - a neat, inexpensive technique to light close-ups

But I'm done arguing about it. I was merely trying to point out that I don't think you've asked for what you want or expect. What you choose to do about it - or not - isn't up to me. Your site. I was only trying to help with some precision.

Here's a neat one just for fun - lighten things up some:

You say: "by your definition (as explained by Dave), that shot of the anemones belongs in the macro category." No, by our definition it does not belong in that category, and you're the one that explained why it doesn't. You said that "It's neither a macro nor an extreme close up by anyones' standards." Our definition says "extreme closeups." The anemone shot is not an extreme closeup, as you pointed out, and therefore is not a macro.

How would you define "macro" for the purposes of this contest?

I should explain for the benefit of others viewing this thread that we did not include a definition in earlier contests, but we found that many people had no idea what "macro" meant, and we therefore had entries in the category that were long-distance shots of flower beds, family portraits, and even a photo of the full moon.

zuzu said:How would you define "macro" for the purposes of this contest?

I should have asked this at the beginning. What is your proposal @evermorelawnless ?

Just offering a bit of opinion--I think that anything that frames a small portion of the subject and makes it the main focus is within the macro category. So it's a question of what is framed and thus, enlarged focus.

Sometimes, it's just easier to state what something isn't!

Here's an example of something I entered in the last contest. I think everyone would agree--definitely a macro:

I have a long, long chunk that I've been working on - and is full of good argumentation to justify this:

get rid of "larger than life sized" as part of the definition (or clarify (sensor or display medium??) using so many words that it's not longer parallel with the other categories) and go with:

Macros and close-ups
or
Macros and extreme close-ups

and realize that people are going to screw up anyway. The moon shot appeared when the category was called " Plant Macros (Closeups) " - and you'd think that most on the site would know that the moon was not a plant (that shot not being a macro aside).

But either of those do take away the awful ambiguity of "larger than life sized" while still asking for what I think you want. And using the "and" rather than the parenthesis allows for Zuzu's bee (which is exactly what I think you want in there), whereas "Macros (closeups)" does not - because closeup is a definition of macro - doesn't modify it in the way that allows for something other than 1:1.

I'm sure it sounds like I'm picking at nits here, but I think it's important to ask for what you want precisely. And when talking about macro photography, "larger than life sized" without context (sensor or identified final medium, for example) muddies rather than clarifies.

If someone doesn't know the meaning of "macro," is there any chance they'd know the meaning of "sensor" or "display medium"?

I'm afraid your definition would be more confusing than ours. The use of "and" instead of parentheses implies that macros are not closeups. Macros and closeups? Are macros not closeups? It's a little like saying "Blooms and flowers." The parentheses are appropriate because all of the explanatory notes in the category titles are in parentheses.

zuzu said:If someone doesn't know the meaning of "macro," is there any chance they'd know the meaning of "sensor" or "display medium"?

How in the world is that relevant to my suggestion? I advocated taking out "larger than life" to take any of that notion of "finished" out of play.

zuzu said:I'm afraid your definition would be more confusing than ours. The use of "and" instead of parentheses implies that macros are not closeups. Macros and closeups? Are macros not closeups? It's a little like saying "Blooms and flowers." The parentheses are appropriate because all of the explanatory notes in the category titles are in parentheses.

Not at all like saying blooms and flowers. You've picked something that seems synonymous there. Which is exactly my point. A macro is a closeup, but a closeup (no matter how extreme) may not necessarily be a macro. A better example would be: Jets and other very fast planes. So maybe a better way to ask is: Macros and other closeups. Or, to run parallel with what you did with the bulbs category and keep your prens: Macros (including extreme closeups). That's almost honest. And what you want to see in the category.

Do whatever you want. It's your site.

From above - and I think it's the genesis of the problem:

zuzu said:
How would you define "macro" for the purposes of this contest?

It's not up to me - or you - to define "macro". It means what it means. We (you) get to use an existing word (macro) in the description of a category (using its meaning that is independent of us) to return the results that we (you) want.

I'm trying to help you use the word properly. You don't get to define it. It's already defined. You get to ask for what you want using terms that are already extant.

You want detailed, close shots in this category. Hence the "and". Further, when you modify "macro" with only "extreme close up", you're still not asking for anything more than 1:1. You're explaining part of what a macro is - it's usually an extreme closeup. But (given how language works) by that ask, you should disqualify anything that isn't a macro - a 1:1. By adding the "and" (or the prens-ed "including"), you allow for close-ups that are shot at 1:???? - as long as they're closeups. Words matter.

You also nicely dodged the objection to "larger than life sized" - which is absolutely meaningless if you don't define where "life sized" is displayed. And that was the genesis of the post. I'd be thrilled to see that go.

What troubles me the most is why you feel like you need to defend something you won't take the time to understand. The wikipedia that Dave linked is a good place to start. Also hit footnote 7 (which was the source of the line he quoted in this thread) and realize that "finished" isn't used at all in that article and was kind of twisted by the wiki editor to shoehorn an idea that was dealt with differently in the footnoted article. And probably needed a little more ink (see paragraph below - I'm guessing that's part of what he was getting at though he didn't articulate it that way).

There's a whole lot more to this conversation with DSLRs that really does make the traditional definition of "macro" pretty shaky (in that a 1:1 macro shot on an ASP-C sensor on a 6.1MP camera could be shot at 1:4 on a 24MP camera and cropped to the same "macro" result...). I suspect that the term will need to be redefined eventually - soon, really. You cannot pack more resolution into a negative. But we've been getting better at packing more resolution into the ASP-C sensor through the years.

Summary: you want true macros AND other stuff. So ask for macros AND other stuff.

Finally, this is one of the most ridiculous conversations I've ever had. I raised a couple of issues re definitions that actually exist. I explained. I had a wiki article tossed back at me that supported the issues that I raised. Data exists. Definitions exist. Language works the way it does. I don't understand the argumentativeness and defensiveness here. Not at all. I'm trying to help with precision - on a subject that I know something about. Usually, at least in my experience, when some new data or a correction comes to light, earnest people take the time to examine it. Educate themselves. And get right with the definitions/data. You can argue with me all day long about what "macro" or "larger than life" (without context) means. But that stuff exists independent of me - and you. No matter how much noise we make here, it's not gonna change. We're irrelevant.

Again, your site, your contest. Do whatever you want. But, again, given that definitions actually exist independent from us, I'll say again:
I don't think you've asked for what you want or expect.

Let's try this. Should simplify (assuming "larger than life" and the idea of "finished" and display media are dead...and I hope they are).

Say you had a photo contest and you wanted a category to be for fast airplanes. Not slow ones. Just the really fast ones. Consider the outcomes of four options for category titles:

1. Jets (fast planes)
2. Jets and fast planes
3. Jets (including other fast planes)
4. Fast planes

Which of the four is the most clear? Which of the four would give you the outcomes you wanted?

The first one should return ONLY pictures of jets. And those in the know about jets would wonder about that silly modifier in parenthesis. Everyone in the know knows that jets are fast planes.

The second would probably return the entries that you wanted. But still may not prevent that odd photo of the moon.

The third would probably get good results, too. But could cause people to wonder why you just didn't call the category "fast planes" - when that's really what you wanted in the first place. Why not ask for what you want rather than get tricky and confusing?

The fourth is the best because it's what exactly you wanted in the first place, but...

For the site/contest, you seem to be wed to the idea of using the term "macro". It's a fancy, magic word. I get that. But I also get that 95pct of the entries in the category won't be macros (1:1s). And that's okay. You want really close shots. Through the years, I think I only submitted 2-3 true macros to the category that bears that name.

But assuming that you have to have "macro" (think jet here) in the title, I think choice two is the most honest and understandable, given the meaning of jet/macro...and the purpose of the category.

"Macro photography...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..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I totally understood the description in the contest. I find it concise and accurate. I've noticed that there are always mistakes in submissions, and not only in the Macro category. It's just going to happen.

Joanna, that's exactly the point.

"in which the size of the subject in the photograph is greater than life size..."

Look at the table of lenses in your link. Only two of the many lenses will do "greater than life sized" without bellows, rings, or a magnifier. (Clearly talking about the sensor here - not "finished")

Fortunately it (the definition) gets modified, later in the article, to include life-sized (or 1:1). But in order to get that, even, you have to be at minimum focusing distance. In other words, the vast, vast, vast majority of the photographs submitted to the category, over the last few years, are not macros. I can think of only one that I shot "greater than life-sized".

So if we're asking for "macro" (1:1 or better) or "greater than life-sized" (as defined in the article - and in the table of lenses) - few, if any, of the submissions will be legit. But that's really not what the category is about - it's just what they're asking people for.

That's the point I am trying to make. People link the wiki and either don't read it...or don't understand it.

I think what Dave et al want for the contest is closeups of stuff - including 1:1 macros or even closer - but not necessarily limited to that. Just tight closeups.

The only point of this thread is to suggest that they take the time to understand what they've asked for - and then ask for what they want.

Alternatively, we could all misunderstand the instructions together - and prettymuch get the same results. I'm just a fan of precision.

We're a gardening site having a fun photo contest. I think the macro definition suits us entering photos.

At the risk of appearing as dumbfounded as I am, I would like to point out the problem as I see it:
This here is a photo contest with a macro category being discussed and misunderstood by people who are not sufficiently versed in photography to know that macrophotography is actually a real thing and what it really is...

By way of example, Joanna's fabulous closeup of the Rudbeckia, which she is confident everyone would agree is a definitely a macro, isn't.

Here is a macro primer of sorts that I think should be fairly understandable even for the uninitiated,
https://photography-on-the.net...

If this were a photography site rather than a gardening site I'm certain that a photo contest with a macro category would not be so confusing.

As it is and as it has been, here, it doesn't seem to make much difference what you call the category or how you define it because it just ends up being whatever the submitters submit and the mods allow anyway, which (obviously, to some people) isn't 'macro'.

IMO, if we were at all interested in being accurate and achievable, with category name and considering the photo-equipment used by the majority of the gardeners here, the category ought to be called
Closeups (including macros)

Just for the record - I and the wiki and everyone else is throwing around terms here. Maybe it would be helpful to see, too. All are full-frame (not cropped).

Pic 1


Pic 2


Pic 3


The first pic, I took with a 1:1, macro lens (Pentax D-FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR - included/mentioned in the wiki table) at the minimum focusing distance. The second, I took with the same lens, but backed off about 1/2 of an inch and then refocused. The third pic is with the same lens, but with a 4x and a 2x (whatever that means...very hard to know) stacked on the end of it. Sorry about the focus on that one. Looked like it was focused on the dark spot...very narrow slice with the magnifiers on. But still enough to illustrate well.

Accepting the linked wiki's definitions (which seem to be the gold standard here) as well as the assumption in Dirt's link that macros START with 1:1 (note that he had to run panoramas (take several shots and stitch them together) on long bugs to actually have a "macro" shot for his article - he didn't just back out until it was all in the frame and call it a macro) , the following is true:

Pic 1
Yes, it IS a macro.
No, it is not "larger than life". It's exactly "life size" per the wiki table.
Probably qualifies, qualitatively, as a close-up. I think.

Pic 2
No, it is NOT a macro. It's close, but it's not 1:1.
No, it's not "larger than life". It's barely smaller because it's not 1:1.
Probably qualifies, qualitatively, as a close-up. I think.

Pic 3
Yes, it IS a macro. It's greater than 1:1 (actually 1:1-x? because who knows about the math of the magnifiers?? apart from knowing they magnify).
Yes, it IS "larger than life" because it's a 1:1 lens, at minimum distance, magnified further.
Probably qualifies, qualitatively, as a close-up. I think.

Note that "close-up" is a judgment call. Zuzu's neat bee, and Joanna's cool shot are close-ups in my book. My anemones are not. Nor is my bee on the catmint...but that seems more equivocal. I wouldn't submit the catmint shot in the category, but I'd not be critical of others if they were to. (Assuming that you're really hoping for close-ups in addition to "macros".)

dirtdorphins said:
By way of example, Joanna's fabulous closeup of the Rudbeckia, which she is confident everyone would agree is a definitely a macro, isn't.

Thanks for your compliment Dirt! But instead of just saying why it's not a marco, how about an explanation of why, in your opinion, it isn't? That would be very helpful.

Interesting discussion. I'd vote for accuracy if there was a vote (which I assume there is not).