Talk:Macro photography

message: I'm curious: why macro? Shouldn't it be micro photography? See Macroscopic.
:Indeed, one manufacturer calls its lenses "micro" even though the most common term in the industry is "macro." It's a branch of photography between photomicrography and ordinary photography. I guess the objects are macroscopic --- it doesn't require a microscope to see a coin or an insect, for example --- so perhaps that's why the term arose? Certainly, I don't know why it's called "macrophotography," but that is the most widely used expression. The article macroscopic bears this out, as it encompasses things as small as a millimeter. Fg2 02:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just one of those terms that evolved into a confusing use of the word.  Sort of like how the word "shutter" can mean the thing that blocks light from hitting the film or chip, but "shutter" can also mean the button you push to take a photograph.  While "micro" would probably make more sense, it's forever engrained into the language of photography, and even has its own technical definition:  "macro" in photo optics means "life-size magnification" or 1:1, ie the subject being the same size on the film plane as in reality.  Which is a difficult trick for a lens to do, costs two stops of light, and changes depth of field from being 1/3 in front of the subject and 2/3 behind, to evenly split.  ForrestCroce 22:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it has real meaning: The term "macro" is not about the micro-sized subjects, but is about the lens, and what it does. "Macro" simply means "large", and a "macro lens" is a lens that enlarges, or magnifies the subject, to either life-size or greater (on the film). All other (non-macro) lenses project an image that is smaller than the subject; macro lenses project an image that is the same size, or larger than the subject.DSiegfried (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macro 

message: i think it will be good to put all the five images in gallery format (for example of gallery format see hibiscus)
--vineeth 05:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree. The hibiscus article has very little flow text and lots of images, it makes sense there. But this page has much more text to support less images. --Dschwen 08:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is :Image:IMGP4550.JPG really useful for this article? -- Smial 18:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery Format 

message: Wouldn't it make sense if the sample images were actually representative of results obtained with a real macro lense, projecting 1:1 image on to the sensor, and not just from a camera marketted as such, these photos are very nice but at least two of them seem more like close-ups than macros--80.6.85.54 01:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Macro 

message: Please remove the image of the spider, which is disturbing for many people. It is completely off topic, and there are any number of other subjects that could be used. I for one will not be able to read this article now. Thank you. Golfcam 23:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may wish to read the disclaimer before looking at anything on Wikipedia. The image demonstrates the subject of the article well. (H) 00:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Insensitive image choice

message: I think that there should be pictures of "more commonly" used macro lenses, e.g. the Canon 100mm or the Nikon 105mm. Y4kk 21:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Displayed lenses 

message: Most cameramen would have lenses in 18mm and 300mm size so they can easily get 16.7 X magnification. 50mm reversed over 200mm makes this technique look very limited so I edited the numbers.
Also a long lens (200mm and more) are quite sturdy. Lenses like 18mm are quite light and can easily be reversed on such a well built lens.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.1.235 (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macro Coupling 

message: Hi there, I found this article written as marketing gobbledegook for macrographics.com, and rewrote it on the basis of the use of the term I could find on Google. However, do people think this should simply be a redirect to this page? Or possibly a merge as a "use in materials science" section in this article? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Macrographic]]

message: The article says, Using a special-purpose lens called a macro lens (perhaps confusingly, some manufacturers call it a micro).  Does anybody other than Nikon use the term micro?  Could this be simplified to, Using a special-purpose lens called a macro lens (Nikon calls it a micro lens)?  -- RoySmith (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macro vs. Micro 

message: Is there anything about the history of macro photograpy on Wikipedia? Is it maybe in a different article? This might be usefully integrated somewhere:
Mr. Goro, whose surname was originally Goreau, photographed many aspects of scientific advances. He invented macrophotography, making visible the world that lies between the microscope and the naked eye.
I'm still looking for more information, and any help would be greatly appreciated. Scribeoflight (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Macro Photo 

message: The Oxford Companion to the Photograph says the correct term to denote close-up or photography involving magnification upto 20x is photomacrography  and NOT macrophotography. It further states that macrophotography denotes "making of giant prints". The link is [here], but access is not free.
Citation details: Graham Saxby "photomacrography"  The Oxford Companion to the Photograph. Ed. Robin Lenman. Oxford University Press 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.  Bristol Libraries.  19 January 2009  <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t207.e1213>
Unhelpfully, every other source seems to use the wrong (according to Oxford) definition.Brittanica seems to come very close to making the distinction [here], but not fully there.
Any more light on this?Mahadevan Subramanian (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  macrophotography or photomacrography 

message: I have added details from forensics to show how powerful macroscopy can be in practice. Further examples of the utility of the method would help improve the article. Peterlewis (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Exemplars

message: How do you convert the sensor size to life size (example when viewing on a monitor/printed)? For example on the 5 cent coin: the E in Cent is 1,5 mm real life and 16cm on my monitor giving a magnify scale of 100.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.243.152.116 (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sensor size versus real size 

message: Just a note : the phrase about the Canon 5:1 lens, Some macro lenses, like the Canon MP-E 65 mm f/2.8, can achieve even better magnification, up to 5:1 macro, bringing the structure of small insect eyes, snowflakes, and other minuscule but detailed objects, can be found on this page. Did Mr. Trott copy what was in the wiki article or was it the other way around ? zubrowka74 17:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canon 5:1 

message: Not yet mentioned: the 2 most accessible add-on lenses for macro work are
# hand held magnifying glass
# lens element taken from scrap optics
No coupler is involved, its just held over the lens end to allow very close focussing, and hence macro images.
Tabby (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add on lens types 

message: And not only special cases like bellows, magnification lenses, retro-ing. The MPe, being a special case, is actually way too prominent. --84.130.182.86 (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article needs a photograph a generic macro lens 

message: For macro lenses, is the listed focal length the focal length of the lens in isolation or focal length that would produce the same angle of view as a lens that could focus to infinity? Since macro lenses may not focus to infinity, these numbers will be different.
If the prior, then the definition of macro as 1:1 magnification suggests that the focal length should be at least as big as the minimum focus distance so that the pinhole camera geometry works out to produce 1:1 magnification. (This seems like it may not be the case since this 1:1 macro lens is listed as f=100 mm but minimum focus is 302 mm. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the f.l. is at infinity focus, and the focus distance is from the film plane, so a 100 mm lens would have 400 mm normally.  But this lens is an internal focus design, meaning the elements move, so at 1:1 it probably has a shorter focal length (closer to 75 mm).  Dicklyon (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focal length & focus distance? 

message: In 2011 someone moved the article from Macro photography to Macrophotography.  I moved it back, as Macrophotography is ambiguous with the other common use of that term, as explained in many photography books that distinguish it from photomacrography, or simply macrography, which is the topic of this article.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean "the making of giant prints"? I can't find any evidence of that to be in common use. I scoured the web for anyone using the term macrophotography synonymously with "giant prints" and could only find links back to this talk page, and forum discussions pointing to this page. On the other hand, there are numerous sites using the term macrophotography to mean "macro photography". It would appear that the use of macrophotography to mean "the making of giant prints" has completely fallen out of common use, if it ever was. I think your phrase (while macrophotography is something entirely different) will not only confuse people (it's completely different--how?) but it's false.  My print version of Merriam Websters defines macrophotograpy as one word; here are four online dictionaries that also define macrophotography as one word:
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1827&bih=900&q=macrophotography&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&psj=1&ei=Y0rZT737GMGj2QX49a29Dw&ved=0CFgQkQ4
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/macrophotography
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/macrophotography
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/macrophotography 
I'm making adjustment based on Webster's DSiegfried (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved back 

message: I'm still learning about the subject, hence my coming to this article, but this section seems to be incorrect. The example calculation involves a lens with 35mm equivalent magnification ratio of 1 which hides the error. According to the formula the reproduction ratio increases with the measured height of the frame - shouldn't it decrease? For example if I'm seeing a measured frame height of 48mm then the subject is twice the height of the image on the (35mm equivalent) 24mm high frame which should yield a magnification ratio of 1/2, but the current formula yields a value of 48/24 = 2. Edvvc (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing that.  Dicklyon (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  35 mm equivalent magnification 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Macro photography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141109184405/http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/50mm-f28-ex-dg-macro to http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/50mm-f28-ex-dg-macro
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141122081648/http://www.zeiss.com:80/camera-lenses/en_de/camera_lenses/slr-lenses/makroplanart250.html to http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/camera_lenses/slr-lenses/makroplanart250.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141022012849/http://www.zeiss.com:80/camera-lenses/en_de/camera_lenses/slr-lenses/makroplanart2100.html to http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/camera_lenses/slr-lenses/makroplanart2100.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130530132239/http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses to http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses#anchor2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified