Macro

[Paz_Pazzaz]

I believe "macro" photography means the physical dimensions of the subject equal the actual dimensions of the subject as captured on either the film or sensor of the camera. For example, if a bee is 3/4 of an inch long then to be considered macro, it fills a space 3/4 of an inch on film or sensor.

Assuming that is correct (I'm not positive), and most Macro Lenses (I've seen) go to a 1:1 reproduction, then how is it possible to photograph say, a fly's eye much larger than life, to photograph it so it is possible to see extraordinary detail? Does the photographer have to use a lens that captures more than 1:1, or do you add magnifying lenses? Or something?

Or is it simply that when you enlarge the captured image, more detail shows?

signed
Confused

[Bob]

Back in film days, the term "Macro" was generally applied to photos which achieved a reproduction ratio of 1:1 or greater on the film plane. As always, nitpickers argued the definition. But, in practice, the term was used more loosely. It was common to hear the term applied to photos with about 10:1 to 1:2 ratios. That's 10 times life size to one half life size. True macro lenses were capable of achieving a minimum of 1:1 on the film plane at their closest focusing distance. Most macro lenses are still designed for 1:1 although there are some that go much higher. Canon, for example, has a 5x macro lens.

Of course, 35mm negatives are seldom displayed as contact prints. The size as printed was much larger than life size. If more detail was needed, you generally needed to photograph the subject at greater than 1:1. This was achieved by various means such as use of expansion tubes or bellows to allow closer focusing; reverse mounting adaptors to allow the lens to be mounted backwards on the camera; or use of a teleconvertor or closeup lens attachment. For very large magnifications, microscopes were used.

What is it that you are wanting to do?

[Paz_Pazzaz]

Bob,

Thank you for your (as usual) thorough explanation. Upon reading it, I realize I used to know most of that. I have extension tubes... sitting on my desk. I'd just forgotten what they're for. Old Timers'? Well...I'm going to keep on going and avoid that conclusion as long as I can.

What is it that you are wanting to do?

I have some footage of bees that are about 3/8 of an inch long on sunflowers that are about 4 inches wide. Looking at the footage, you'd guess the bees and flowers are full size. The amount of detail that can be seen in these tiny bees is so clear, you'd never guess they are so small. I'd like to do more of that - and other beasties that happily eat my garden. This footage was taken from about 11 - 12 feet away with my 100-400 lens - 2x on the micro four thirds, so from 200 - 800, 35mm scale. I'd like to get even more detail. I have a 100mm Canon macro lens. It is not an L lens and I've never been stunned or thrilled with anything I've done with it the way I often am with the 100-400 L. I've been trying to figure out how to get the best out of both of them.

With extension tubes and tele converters maybe I can get down to the thousands of tiny eyes detail in a fly's eye. Or a dragon fly's eye. You know... some Sidd and ants stuff! Transparent abdomens! I find macro shots fascinating and would like to do macro video, if I can.

I've looked at a lot of "macro" still shots and usually come away thinking, 'I can already get flower pollen as well as that.', but then there are some shots that are so magnified you'd almost have to guess what you're looking at and then when you figure it out it is amazing. I often realize I have bugs in my flower shots after I'm back in the house looking at the footage. I want to concentrate on specifically hunting for them. They're much more interesting than - oh - another - pretty - flower - so - what.

From what I've been reading lately, micro 4/3 is particularly good for macro. Perhaps there are some old lenses out there that would be better, and cheaper than my Canon 100mm macro. Zeiss or Leica? As brands go, would those two be likely to be sharpest? If so, I need to figure out what kind of bodies they were originally designed to fit so I can see if they can be adapted to the Pany GH4 for a reasonable amount.

[Edit: add:

Is an "achromat" a close-up lens?]



thanks again,

Patrice

[sidd finch]

I look forward to what you come up with. With Macro it is like opening up this world that you did not even know existed right before your eyes.

Sidd

[Paz_Pazzaz]

I look forward to what you come up with.

Me too. I've been reading and re-reading and learning about macro all over again. I think I stumbled onto a macro effect by using a long lens with a 1.4 tele converter and it just happened that I got some nice images of some beastie bugs.

I've been practicing. It seems when I use the hollow extension tubes I have to be very close to the subject to achieve any kind of focus. Less than 5 inches or so. That's not going work. And I've been reading and have remembered about focus stacking with many still images to get super duper closeups. That's not going to work for video either. It looks like my best bet is to add either a 1.4 or 2x tele converter and get as close as I can when I spot monsters but I don't believe video footage of the thousands of flies' eyes is going to happen.

I'll post something soon to show what I've had so much fun with.

Paz