Doug Kerr
Well-known member
"Macrophotography" (sometimes, "photomacrography") can perhaps be most aptly defined as "the photography of small objects, but not so small as to require photographing through a microscope."
The prefix macro, from the Greek, means "large". How did it come to refer to small objects? Let's back up a little.
The prefix micro, also from the Greek, means "small". A microscope is an instrument for viewing small objects - often, so small that they cannot (at least in a practical way) be seen by the unaided eye.
In the field of science, microscopic came to mean objects so small that they could only be seen through a microscope. Then, in contrast, macroscopic was coined to mean objects larger than that. (It was a peculiar formation, suggesting that these object could "viewed with a macroscope", there of course being no such instrument.) The term applied equally well to a grain of rice or an entire galaxy.
The photographing of "microscopic" objects, indeed through a microscope or its equivalent, came to be known as microphotography, or photomicrography, depending on whether your orientation was that of photographer or microscopist. (Recall the old joke about an embryologist's concept of a chicken as an egg's way of generating another egg.)
In photography, we came to adopt a much more limited meaning of the prefix macro - something like I discussed at the head of this note. We after all did not need a special term to describe the photographing of an object the size of our mother-in-law, but maybe needed one to describe filling the frame with a postage stamp (especially because our ordinary camera setup would not provide for that).
There are those who crave a more definitive meaning of what constitutes macrophtography (as if that was needed to decide whether it was permissible or not at a coin show).
Often we hear that "macrophotography is photography with an image magnification of at least 1:1 (1.0)".
But this hardly works in the general field of photography.
Consider a view camera with a format size of 8" x 10". When it is configured to give a magnification of 1:1, we can just about fill the frame with an image of an entire ladies' high-heeled shoe. While that might qualify as a "small object" to a moving van operator, that process doesn't really seem to warrant the description "macrophotography".
Similarly, there are those who look for an objective criterion for what "qualifies" a lens to be designated a "macro" lens. Usually here, too, the dictum of "magnification of at least 1:1" is often invoked.
But a well-respected lens for "35-mm family" cameras is the Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro lens. It provides for image magnification of up to 1:2 (0.5). So is it fraudulently designated?
Well, goes the argument, there is an optional accessory for it which, when fitted, allows the attainment of magnification up to 1:1. But I have many lenses which, when fitted with an optional accessory, can attain magnification of 1:1.
Many are disturbed by markings on lenses that say, for example, "Macro: 0.45m" (that's on my Canon EF 24-105mm f/1.4 L USM lens). "That's misleading labeling", they will say. Well that doesn't say that this is a "macro lens" (whatever that might mean, anyway). It reminds us that, when we are interested in photography at a fairly large magnification (which can reasonably be thought of as "macrophotography"), which requires short object distance, that this lens can focus down to 0.45m.
So what's the bottom line? Well, to me, while it is perfectly reasonable to speak of photographing spiders, or postage stamps, as "macrophotography", we need not struggle to find a numeric definition of what that is. We don't need it, and we can't do it.
The prefix macro, from the Greek, means "large". How did it come to refer to small objects? Let's back up a little.
The prefix micro, also from the Greek, means "small". A microscope is an instrument for viewing small objects - often, so small that they cannot (at least in a practical way) be seen by the unaided eye.
In the field of science, microscopic came to mean objects so small that they could only be seen through a microscope. Then, in contrast, macroscopic was coined to mean objects larger than that. (It was a peculiar formation, suggesting that these object could "viewed with a macroscope", there of course being no such instrument.) The term applied equally well to a grain of rice or an entire galaxy.
The photographing of "microscopic" objects, indeed through a microscope or its equivalent, came to be known as microphotography, or photomicrography, depending on whether your orientation was that of photographer or microscopist. (Recall the old joke about an embryologist's concept of a chicken as an egg's way of generating another egg.)
In photography, we came to adopt a much more limited meaning of the prefix macro - something like I discussed at the head of this note. We after all did not need a special term to describe the photographing of an object the size of our mother-in-law, but maybe needed one to describe filling the frame with a postage stamp (especially because our ordinary camera setup would not provide for that).
There are those who crave a more definitive meaning of what constitutes macrophtography (as if that was needed to decide whether it was permissible or not at a coin show).
Often we hear that "macrophotography is photography with an image magnification of at least 1:1 (1.0)".
But this hardly works in the general field of photography.
Consider a view camera with a format size of 8" x 10". When it is configured to give a magnification of 1:1, we can just about fill the frame with an image of an entire ladies' high-heeled shoe. While that might qualify as a "small object" to a moving van operator, that process doesn't really seem to warrant the description "macrophotography".
Similarly, there are those who look for an objective criterion for what "qualifies" a lens to be designated a "macro" lens. Usually here, too, the dictum of "magnification of at least 1:1" is often invoked.
But a well-respected lens for "35-mm family" cameras is the Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro lens. It provides for image magnification of up to 1:2 (0.5). So is it fraudulently designated?
Well, goes the argument, there is an optional accessory for it which, when fitted, allows the attainment of magnification up to 1:1. But I have many lenses which, when fitted with an optional accessory, can attain magnification of 1:1.
Many are disturbed by markings on lenses that say, for example, "Macro: 0.45m" (that's on my Canon EF 24-105mm f/1.4 L USM lens). "That's misleading labeling", they will say. Well that doesn't say that this is a "macro lens" (whatever that might mean, anyway). It reminds us that, when we are interested in photography at a fairly large magnification (which can reasonably be thought of as "macrophotography"), which requires short object distance, that this lens can focus down to 0.45m.
So what's the bottom line? Well, to me, while it is perfectly reasonable to speak of photographing spiders, or postage stamps, as "macrophotography", we need not struggle to find a numeric definition of what that is. We don't need it, and we can't do it.
