[JWest]

I did just get a proper macro lens, the Canon RF 100mm 2.8 IS, but recently I was testing a 2x TC onto the RF 600mm f4 with the Canon R1. This actually worked out nicely I think but I have to go through the first shots with the macro the other day.

It actually seems much harder to choose images than with wildlife because with animals, for me anyway, it's a simple first cut of anything either not quite in focus OR with the animal turning its head away, or some other easy to pass issue.

With the close viewed flowers and such, the focus point feels incredibly subjective, less 'right vs wrong' and then the subtle compositional aspects are also more like 'none are wrong', 'everything is pretty'.

This was from across my backyard, at least 40 ft, maybe 50ft, handheld.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Len Shepherd]

There is likely to be debate about a "definition" of "macro".
Your image seems to be at least in the realm of close up

Photographic equipment is evolving - in that not very long ago few telephotos went closer than a 12 inch wide subject - which many would agree is not very close up.

Many long telephotos now focus much closer - with the ability for close-up photos with much narrower angle and diffuse out of focus backgrounds as in your well lit image of a near pristine subject.
In camera IBIS and in-body IS/VR is also improving - with the result hand held "long distance close-up images" like yours are easier to achieve than maybe just 10 years ago.

I am more interested in a well composed image in good lighting than what is or what is not technically a macro subject

 

[JWest]

hey @Jackalope , love that online name! When I was a kid, back in the 70's, I absolutley loved the Jackalopes we found on our road trip from MN to AZ through WY and Colorado. Those gave me such an eye opener to the awesome silliness that sometimes exists in the world. On that trip I also got to hike in the snow around Devils tower not long after having seen Close Encounters of the Third Kind !

 

[Jackalope]

Hey JW thanks for the shout out. Was anointed with that name by group of friends where everyone had to have a nickname. In the field working distance is key so my go-to lens for closeups up to .66x is my 300/4 with manual extension tubes (Nikon PN-11 (52.5mm), of which I own 2 in addition to 27.5mm tube) and have a 1.4 tele and Cannon 500D close up filter so can go slightly over 1x but the IQ suffers. Sometimes use 500 PF lens but limited to the flimsy 3rd party tubes which don't consistently maintain connection when multiple tubes are combined. As John Shaw used to say " the best lens for any shot is the one you have with you".

 

[tclune]

For many years, there was a clear and unambiguous meaning for "macro" -- if the image was at least as large on the negative or sensor as it was in real life, the photo was a macro photograph. But that definition never seemed as cogent with digital sensors as it did with film. There's no such thing as a contact print from a sensor, after all. My recollection (may well be in error, so approach with caution!) was that Tamron started referring to their lenses that had a 1:2 maximum magnification as "Macro." My recollection is that there was a bit of blowback from that, but it died down eventually. Now, the term "macro" can be applied to just about anything AFAICT.

 

[Replytoken]

It has been covered in the posts above, and as @tclune said, some accept 1:2 as macro and others only 1:1 or greater. I generally refer to my shots as close-up photos even if I am using a macro lens unless I am at something like 1:2 or 1:1. In either event, worry less, shoot more, especially since so many of the new telephotos have better close focusing magnification.

--Ken

 

[JWest]

It has been covered in the posts above, and as @tclune said, some accept 1:2 as macro and others only 1:1 or greater. I generally refer to my shots as close-up photos even if I am using a macro lens unless I am at something like 1:2 or 1:1. In either event, worry less, shoot more, especially since so many of the new telephotos have better close focusing magnification.

--Ken

Yeah, my question is more about where to place an image on this site and if calling something macro is inaccurate.

 

[Replytoken]

Yeah, my question is more about where to place an image on this site and if calling something macro is inaccurate.

I ran into the same issue when I recently posted and decided that close-up was close enough since not all of the posts in the macro forum are at 1:1. I could be wrong and the moderators could provide some additional guidance on what is or is not permitted in that forum, but there are not a lot of other choices for images like what you posted and what I posted previously.

--Ken

 

[jeffnles1]

I always call such shots macro/close focus. I have the canon 100mm macro and it is a fine lens. I love the way it renders both true macro and close focus. I also use the 100-500L lens to do come close focus stuff. The generic name folks use is macro for anything close focus. True macro is when the image is rendered 1:1 or greater. I’m not a bit stickler for names. Your image here is gorgeous.

 

[sh1209]

Very nice!

 

[JWest]

I always call such shots macro/close focus. I have the canon 100mm macro and it is a fine lens. I love the way it renders both true macro and close focus. I also use the 100-500L lens to do come close focus stuff. The generic name folks use is macro for anything close focus. True macro is when the image is rendered 1:1 or greater. I’m not a bit stickler for names. Your image here is gorgeous.

Thank you. That's basically what I was thinking regarding "macro" vs just "close-up"

 

[viper699]

Macro lens are often 1:1, even for digital.

I feel just looking at an image itself (ignoring or not knowing gear used) and saying macro or not is subjective. IMO I would not consider this image a macro. When I see macro images I expect to see fine details that I would not be able to view otherwise easily or at all.