Perverted language

[Ron Evers]

I use the term "macro" reluctantly in photography because it is the convention. My instinct is to call it "micro" NOT "macro". To me micro is very small & macro large. Who perverted the word macro to mean small with regard to photography anyway?

 

[ustein]

Maybe it means to view small things large (Macro).

 

[Ron Evers]

Maybe it means to view small things large (Macro).

Well, that is an interesting point of view.

 

[photoSmart42]

Maybe it means to view small things large (Macro).

That's my take on it as well. It's seeing it from a different perspective. Oddly enough there's both macro and micro photography (even though they do the exact same thing), and it seems the delineation between the two is something like 5x magnification.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Change to Nikon, and the problem disappears

 

[Ron Evers]

That's my take on it as well. It's seeing it from a different perspective. Oddly enough there's both macro and micro photography (even though they do the exact same thing), and it seems the delineation between the two is something like 5x magnification.

I still think it is a perversion. It is like saying a microscope is a macroscope because it make small things look large.

 

[Vivek]

LOL, I agree with what Joergen said!

 

[RichA]

Term macro is (I think) accurate

I still think it is a perversion. It is like saying a microscope is a macroscope because it make small things look large.

The term, which originated from Greek meaning "meagre"'which could mean small too so it's likely more accurately used in cameras than in say, economics where it refers to large systems.
Nikon and Olympus both offered so-called micro lenses that fit on bellows and produced actual magnification, as opposed to the traditional 1:1 of the regular macro lens. So, in their case, they could have used micro to describe the small high power lenses (akin to microscope objectives almost) and used macro to describe the non-magnifying 1:1 lenses. Olympus did this, Nikon did not.

 

[Tikkis]

I use the term "macro" reluctantly in photography because it is the convention. My instinct is to call it "micro" NOT "macro". To me micro is very small & macro large. Who perverted the word macro to mean small with regard to photography anyway?

There is a long tradition behind these terms. It's been thought that from larger scale to the micro scale the terms are; close-up photography (up to 1:10), macro photography (1:10 - 1:1) and micro photography (from 1:1 to larger than life).

I really don't know if these boundaries are formed by the strictest rules but I find this order and system highly logical.

Best Regards,
Tikkis, Helsinki (-20 C)

 

[Ron Evers]

There is a long tradition behind these terms. It's been thought that from larger scale to the micro scale the terms are; close-up photography (up to 1:10), macro photography (1:10 - 1:1) and micro photography (from 1:1 to larger than life).

I really don't know if these boundaries are formed by the strictest rules but I find this order and system highly logical.

Best Regards,
Tikkis, Helsinki (-20 C)

That is so far the most convincing argument in favour of macro. :salute: