Margaret West
November 2024 - Zinnia
About the Image(s)
I took this actually with my 70-200 lens at 1/1000, f 5.6 ISO 800. I have found this lens takes a macro type photo but please tell me if it qualifies as a macro photo or not. I think I must have been photographing butterflies this day ( I took it last week but not sure why I had the speed up so high!) to explain my shutter speed. Anyway I like how the lighting came out and the overall effect. If it’s not considered macro I won’t submit photos using this lens again. All my other entries have been with a macro lens. Thanks!
10 comments posted
Hi Margaret, I like your image very much - I like that it opens up and as you look at it you discover different colors and other surprises. I also like the black background.
P.S. I am also curious on whether technically a zoom lens (at 200?) image qualifies as a macro shot - would be useful to know when traveling and not carrying the dedicated macro lens. Posted: 11/13/2024 22:24:53
P.S. I am also curious on whether technically a zoom lens (at 200?) image qualifies as a macro shot - would be useful to know when traveling and not carrying the dedicated macro lens. Posted: 11/13/2024 22:24:53
It doesn't matter a jot what lens you use to make a macro shot - only the magnification used matters, and non-macro lenses sometimes can deliver macro magnification, eg a lens with a "macro filter" (a converging lens screwed into the filter holder) can give macro images, or using extension tubes.
Macro used to be defined as 1:1 or higher magnification. 1:1, or 1x, means the size of the image on the film / sensor is the exact same size as the subject being photographed. 1.1x is fine, but 0.9x is not macro by this definition. It still is an accepted definition to many. But the number of sensor sizes available now makes this definition unworkable in my view. My Olympus camera has an 18x12mm sensor size. Olympus refer to their 60mm macro lens as "maximum magnification 1:1". Used at this setting you find a subject 18mm long will fill the long side of the frame. So Olympus /OM Systems are using this definition.
But when you look at the difficulty in taking the photo, you have to be closer to take an image of something 18mm high or wide fill the frame. Full frame cameras can meet 1x with a subject 36mm high / wide! Unfair!! So, I think an alternative definition, used by many, that 1:1 is a subject 36mm high filling the long side of the frame, regardless of the sensor size. Micro 4/3 being a "cropped sensor" is - well - cropping the image! As does an APSC camera, although it doesn't crop quite as much. I would imagine large format users might not like this definition!
Another issue is that an inflexible definition of macro does limit what you are "allowed" to photograph. This image of Margaret's is not macro by any of these definitions. But is it a nice photo? - yes, definitely. People in the "close-up" groups on DD might say "well you should be in this group for that", and it's a fair point, many macro photographers would agree. But I don't think anyone doing macro shouts "Foul!" if someone doing "close-up" accidentally takes at 1x magnification! So my view is to be flexible. I think when the magnification gets below say 0.25:1 (0.25x magnification) then it's definitely not macro, and I encourage members of this group to keep their magnification up if possible. But I'm certainly "guilty" of posting photos that are 0.5x and less - I don't like wasting a nice image just to conform to a rule here.
So, do use your 70-200mm zoom lens. If you want to, crop the image down to make up the shortfall if you subject didn't fill the frame. Again, some purists say this isn't a macro technique, the original image should be 1x or more. But I, and you, might think that's too restrictive. You do lose quality of course when cropping, which is not ideal and exposes poorer images.
Actually, using a long focal length and cropping slightly increases the depth of field, the macro photographers' nemesis.
So, the long and short of it is, what magnification are you getting? not what lens are you using. Posted: 11/13/2024 23:06:05
Macro used to be defined as 1:1 or higher magnification. 1:1, or 1x, means the size of the image on the film / sensor is the exact same size as the subject being photographed. 1.1x is fine, but 0.9x is not macro by this definition. It still is an accepted definition to many. But the number of sensor sizes available now makes this definition unworkable in my view. My Olympus camera has an 18x12mm sensor size. Olympus refer to their 60mm macro lens as "maximum magnification 1:1". Used at this setting you find a subject 18mm long will fill the long side of the frame. So Olympus /OM Systems are using this definition.
But when you look at the difficulty in taking the photo, you have to be closer to take an image of something 18mm high or wide fill the frame. Full frame cameras can meet 1x with a subject 36mm high / wide! Unfair!! So, I think an alternative definition, used by many, that 1:1 is a subject 36mm high filling the long side of the frame, regardless of the sensor size. Micro 4/3 being a "cropped sensor" is - well - cropping the image! As does an APSC camera, although it doesn't crop quite as much. I would imagine large format users might not like this definition!
Another issue is that an inflexible definition of macro does limit what you are "allowed" to photograph. This image of Margaret's is not macro by any of these definitions. But is it a nice photo? - yes, definitely. People in the "close-up" groups on DD might say "well you should be in this group for that", and it's a fair point, many macro photographers would agree. But I don't think anyone doing macro shouts "Foul!" if someone doing "close-up" accidentally takes at 1x magnification! So my view is to be flexible. I think when the magnification gets below say 0.25:1 (0.25x magnification) then it's definitely not macro, and I encourage members of this group to keep their magnification up if possible. But I'm certainly "guilty" of posting photos that are 0.5x and less - I don't like wasting a nice image just to conform to a rule here.
So, do use your 70-200mm zoom lens. If you want to, crop the image down to make up the shortfall if you subject didn't fill the frame. Again, some purists say this isn't a macro technique, the original image should be 1x or more. But I, and you, might think that's too restrictive. You do lose quality of course when cropping, which is not ideal and exposes poorer images.
Actually, using a long focal length and cropping slightly increases the depth of field, the macro photographers' nemesis.
So, the long and short of it is, what magnification are you getting? not what lens are you using. Posted: 11/13/2024 23:06:05
I like this too, there's lots of subdued detail. It's sharp at the front and only slightly softer at the back, which is no criticism, a limited depth of field is often an attribute. I've discussed DoF many times here in the past, and what's important is that the bits you wanted to be sharp, are sharp, and the rest not sharp to some degree. So I'm completely happy with the sharpness here. A little lighter (more exposure) might make it more lively, but again, I've no problems with the image as it is.
Posted: 11/13/2024 22:38:17
Posted: 11/13/2024 22:38:17
Margaret West
Thanks! Hoping I understand your explanation of macro but think I do. I only cropped this a little so it almost filled the frame Posted: 11/15/2024 19:05:08
Yes, the definition of macro is a tedious subject really. But you did ask! If I wasn't clear, just ask again.
The point is, the lens used to take a macro doesn't matter, and macro lenses can take jolly good non-macro images! What does matter is the magnification between the subject and the sensor. The higher the magnification, the better for a macro group, but I certainly wouldn't like to see nice images like this excluded because of a requirement for a certain magnification.
Posted: 11/15/2024 20:50:42
The point is, the lens used to take a macro doesn't matter, and macro lenses can take jolly good non-macro images! What does matter is the magnification between the subject and the sensor. The higher the magnification, the better for a macro group, but I certainly wouldn't like to see nice images like this excluded because of a requirement for a certain magnification.
Posted: 11/15/2024 20:50:42
thanks Stuart... I have to chew on these concepts. Posted: 11/20/2024 03:46:53
Margaret, pretty flower. this lens give good focus throughout. I almost said get rid of the black spot then realized it was an insect. the pink petals look in focus and the center pulls my eye to it. light on the pink petal is very nice and soft then the background fades into black which is nice so that the eye does not leave the pink petals. no comments on macro or lenses from me. Posted: 11/20/2024 03:52:24
Margaret West
Thanks Pat Posted: 11/20/2024 12:03:11
Great image! The lighting is wonderful, and it really pops from the black background. Posted: 11/20/2024 06:24:43
Margaret West
Thanks Carol Posted: 11/20/2024 12:03:30