Naim Forum photo al***
Posted by: count.d on 18 January 2004
1.
[This message was edited by count.d on SUNDAY 18 January 2004 at 12:42.]
[This message was edited by count.d on SUNDAY 18 January 2004 at 12:42.]
Posted on: 12 April 2004 by Joe Petrik
Mike,
The problem is that camera manufacturers toss around the macro label the way that boombox manufactures state watts-per-channel ratings. Some are honest, some aren't.
Although there's no common definition of "macro," most photographers would say that macro photography starts at a ratio of 1:4. This means that the size of the image on film (or CCD/CMOS sensor if you're shooting with a digital camera) is one-quarter of the object's actual size. My two macro lenses -- 55mm and 200mm -- left me go to 1:2. In other words, if I focus as close as possible with either lens, objects on film will appear one-half actual size. A 2cm bug, for example, will be 1 cm on film. (It'll be bigger than 1 cm, of course, if I enlarge the film.)
The important thing to keep in mind is that the lens's focal length has no bearing on this ratio. Whether I focus to 1:2 with the 55mm lens (a "normal" lens) or to 1:2 with the 200mm lens (a telephoto), the object will appear on film at half actual size. The difference is that I can get that 1:2 ratio from farther back with my 200mm lens than with my 55mm lens. (You could also use a wideangle macro lens to take the shot, but you'd have to be on top of the subject to get the 1:2 ratio, which is why wideangle macros are impractical.)
I'd agree. Most macro photography is not about art and most guys into macro photography are nerds who are not even interested in art. In fact, most wear polyester trousers and thick horn-rimmed glasses, but not in an Elvis Costello ironic way.
Joe
quote:
I would merely like to see a comparison shot of telephoto vs. macro of the same subject, framed in the same manner, using similarly commendable equipment. If I could easily discern a difference in quality, then I would gladly accept the benefits of the macro approach without further questions. As it is, I haven't seen that proof yet.
The problem is that camera manufacturers toss around the macro label the way that boombox manufactures state watts-per-channel ratings. Some are honest, some aren't.
Although there's no common definition of "macro," most photographers would say that macro photography starts at a ratio of 1:4. This means that the size of the image on film (or CCD/CMOS sensor if you're shooting with a digital camera) is one-quarter of the object's actual size. My two macro lenses -- 55mm and 200mm -- left me go to 1:2. In other words, if I focus as close as possible with either lens, objects on film will appear one-half actual size. A 2cm bug, for example, will be 1 cm on film. (It'll be bigger than 1 cm, of course, if I enlarge the film.)
The important thing to keep in mind is that the lens's focal length has no bearing on this ratio. Whether I focus to 1:2 with the 55mm lens (a "normal" lens) or to 1:2 with the 200mm lens (a telephoto), the object will appear on film at half actual size. The difference is that I can get that 1:2 ratio from farther back with my 200mm lens than with my 55mm lens. (You could also use a wideangle macro lens to take the shot, but you'd have to be on top of the subject to get the 1:2 ratio, which is why wideangle macros are impractical.)
quote:
One other thing: I'm still trying to understand the artistic merit of most macro photography. I will admit that Vuk's shot is lovely (upside down or not). However, much (most?) macro photography seems to be mere "pictures of flowers", and not an artistic interpretation of the thing. Perhaps it's simply that many (most?) macro photographers are technicians rather than artists.
I'd agree. Most macro photography is not about art and most guys into macro photography are nerds who are not even interested in art. In fact, most wear polyester trousers and thick horn-rimmed glasses, but not in an Elvis Costello ironic way.
Joe
Posted on: 12 April 2004 by maxwellspeed
I was recently given an Olympus OM4T with 4 lenses etc. It was used by police in crime 'macro' work so no doubt it has seen some gruesome details. One lens is a 135mm f4.5 macro and the other a 80mm f4 macro which are used in conjuntion with the telescopic auto tube 65~116. I am a complete beginner having never owned a nice camera system so please be gentle. (oh, and I only wear horned rim glasses when I take out my contacts)
Posted on: 12 April 2004 by Mike Hanson
Thanks for the many replies, guys. Between these and the introduction at http://www.photo.net/macro/primer, the reason for a true macro lense has become clear.
As to the "art" thing, I prefer art to go beyond the mere capturing of the subject. I want it to suggest more, to re/interpret, to force you to analyze your own perceptions, to make you feel something, etc. This is especially challenging for photographers, as it's somewhat simple to use a camera to record an adequate facsimile of a subject (sometimes with significant visual impact), but it's much harder to create a picture that goes beyond the mundane image to something greater.
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
As to the "art" thing, I prefer art to go beyond the mere capturing of the subject. I want it to suggest more, to re/interpret, to force you to analyze your own perceptions, to make you feel something, etc. This is especially challenging for photographers, as it's somewhat simple to use a camera to record an adequate facsimile of a subject (sometimes with significant visual impact), but it's much harder to create a picture that goes beyond the mundane image to something greater.
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
Posted on: 12 April 2004 by Joe Petrik
Mike,
The Photonet link you posted is a good primer on macro photography, but if you want to explore the topic in more depth, the book Matthew mentioned, John Shaw's Closeups in Nature is the best I've come across. The bonus is that Shaw's pix are better than most, but I hesitate to equate his bugs and flowers shots with Vukian art.
On the other hand, if you want a good primer on Marco photography, you should ask Mick, since he took some ace shots of the former forum member's -- a-hem -- member. (All records of this apparently were lost during the Great Forum Crash of '04. In fact, some think this caused the Great Forum Crash of '04.)
Joe
quote:
Between these and the introduction at http://www.photo.net/macro/primer, the reason for a true macro lense has become clear.
The Photonet link you posted is a good primer on macro photography, but if you want to explore the topic in more depth, the book Matthew mentioned, John Shaw's Closeups in Nature is the best I've come across. The bonus is that Shaw's pix are better than most, but I hesitate to equate his bugs and flowers shots with Vukian art.
On the other hand, if you want a good primer on Marco photography, you should ask Mick, since he took some ace shots of the former forum member's -- a-hem -- member. (All records of this apparently were lost during the Great Forum Crash of '04. In fact, some think this caused the Great Forum Crash of '04.)
Joe
Posted on: 12 April 2004 by ErikL
Pics from someone who has a cheap 2MP camera and not the slightest clue how to use it...
Posted on: 12 April 2004 by ErikL
...and
Posted on: 12 April 2004 by ErikL
...and this
Posted on: 12 April 2004 by Dan M
Ludwig,
Is that bike near Parque de Ibirapuera? If I had had the time, I would have rented a bike there. Aren't the skies wicked in Brazil? All that convection makes for some spectecular storm clouds (see also pic 3 pages back).
cheers
Dan
Is that bike near Parque de Ibirapuera? If I had had the time, I would have rented a bike there. Aren't the skies wicked in Brazil? All that convection makes for some spectecular storm clouds (see also pic 3 pages back).
cheers
Dan
Posted on: 12 April 2004 by Haroon
Sorry it just seemed to me that some of the replies (not just yours) werent very clear as to how they answered mikes query, but thats just me I guess so no offence intended.
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Mike said "So beyond "getting closer", are there any other benefits of macro photography for taking pictures of moderately small things, versus using a telephoto lens from a greater distance?"
Macro photographby *is* "getting closer". That's the whole point of it. If you do not want to focus close and take big pictures of small things you can safely forget all about macro photography. It's also not correct to compare macro photography and lenses with taking a picture with a telephoto lens. The two things are unrelated.
Haroon -- I am not sure what you mean. I was trying to help Mike by offering answers to his questions.
Matthew
Posted on: 13 April 2004 by ErikL
Dan M,
Yup, that pic was taken in Ibirapuera.
So, when are you returning for some more exploring? It's such a massive and diverse country, I've been several times and still haven't made it to the Amazon!
Yup, that pic was taken in Ibirapuera.
So, when are you returning for some more exploring? It's such a massive and diverse country, I've been several times and still haven't made it to the Amazon!
Posted on: 13 April 2004 by Haroon
Ludwig I dont get it as to why people want to go to the amazon - just get bit by mozzies and look at trees 
Ive been to brazil twice now and I look forward to going again too - north of the country is left Salvador onwards!
From my first trip, graffiti on a wall in a Rio favela
Ive been to brazil twice now and I look forward to going again too - north of the country is left Salvador onwards!
From my first trip, graffiti on a wall in a Rio favela
Posted on: 15 April 2004 by Klva
Just my daughter. Isn't she nice ???
Posted on: 15 April 2004 by Klva
With the picture, it's better
Posted on: 26 April 2004 by Dan M
I thought I'd bump this with another pic from Brazil --
[This message was edited by Dan M on Tue 27 April 2004 at 7:20.]
[This message was edited by Dan M on Tue 27 April 2004 at 7:20.]
Posted on: 26 April 2004 by Dan M
try again
Posted on: 27 April 2004 by count.d
klva, that's a great picture.
Posted on: 27 April 2004 by Derek Wright
Partners
Caption was
I cannot pick up keys, open the door, empty the washing machine ---- but she can
Canine Partners
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 28 April 2004 by Klva
quote:
Originally posted by count.d:
klva, that's a great picture.
My wife took teh picture and thanks you
Regards
Klva
Etienne
Posted on: 17 May 2004 by Joe Petrik
Just trying to resurrect the thread...
Joe
_____________________________________
Nerd info: Nikon F4, 180mm lens, Fuji Provia 100F
Joe
_____________________________________
Nerd info: Nikon F4, 180mm lens, Fuji Provia 100F
Posted on: 17 May 2004 by Joe Petrik
__________________________________
Nerd info: Nikon F4, 18mm, Fuji Provia 400F
Nerd info: Nikon F4, 18mm, Fuji Provia 400F
Posted on: 17 May 2004 by matthewr
You've been to Castle Vuksanovic since teh refurb then Joe 
Nice pic.
Matthew
Nice pic.
Matthew
Posted on: 17 May 2004 by matthewr
Posted on: 17 May 2004 by Joe Petrik
Matthew,
Yes, and I must say that the Baron served the most delightful cucumber and watercress sandwiches to his esteemed guests.
Joe
P.S. Nice primary colours.
quote:
You've been to Castle Vuksanovic since teh refurb then Joe
Yes, and I must say that the Baron served the most delightful cucumber and watercress sandwiches to his esteemed guests.
Joe
P.S. Nice primary colours.
Posted on: 19 May 2004 by Mike Hanson
My wife took this shot with our Canon G3 digital, and I quite enjoy looking at it. I'm not sure whether it's "good" though.
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
Posted on: 19 May 2004 by count.d
That's a great shot Joe.