Rain fall on plant in my backyard - single drop falling from leaf

On 05/10/2010 18:20, Paddy's Pig wrote:
Rain fall on plant in my backyard - single drop falling from leaf




Very nice!

I cropped it to fit my screen's aspect ratio, great wallpaper.

'Ta!

wolf k.

"Wolf K" wrote in message
om...

Very nice!

I cropped it to fit my screen's aspect ratio, great wallpaper.

'Ta!

Thanks Wolf. Yeah I did the same:

"Paddy's Pig" wrote in message
...
Rain fall on plant in my backyard - single drop falling from leaf

Although I shot this with a macro lens it is NOT --- repeat NOT a macro
shot.

It is a close-up. That is all it is.

One poster I've seen in this group insists on calling his closeups macros.

To be a true macro the subject (in this case the drop itself) must be about
the same size on the sensor or film plane as it is in real life --- in other
words about a 1:1 ratio.

This image is nowhere close to that 1:1 ratio.
--
Pat Durkin

Top o' the day to ya Paddy my friend. Going all technical are ya now?
Pray tell can ye elaborate just a wee bit more then?
(My best Irish accent)

So for example, if you should try to take a Macro shot of a dime, what
has to be the same size? I have an icon on my Sony that shows macro?
(This is the part I don't understand?)
Cheers Wendy (who points & clicks)

"Paddy's Pig" wrote in message
...
"Paddy's Pig" wrote in message
...
Rain fall on plant in my backyard - single drop falling from leaf

Although I shot this with a macro lens it is NOT --- repeat NOT a macro
shot.

It is a close-up. That is all it is.

One poster I've seen in this group insists on calling his closeups macros.

To be a true macro the subject (in this case the drop itself) must be
about the same size on the sensor or film plane as it is in real life ---
in other words about a 1:1 ratio.

This image is nowhere close to that 1:1 ratio.
--
Pat Durkin

"Wendy7" wrote in message
...
Top o' the day to ya Paddy my friend. Going all technical are ya now?
Pray tell can ye elaborate just a wee bit more then?
(My best Irish accent)

So for example, if you should try to take a Macro shot of a dime, what
has to be the same size?

You'd need to move the camera close enough to the dime - or vice versa - so
that the image of the dime appears as large on you sensor as it is in real
life.

In that particular case it would probably overlap at the top and bottom
since the sensor is rectangular.

A macro lens would support that and would be able to focus even though it
wouldn't be a whole dime in your picture.

I have an icon on my Sony that shows macro?

Simply having the macro switch on doesn't mean everything you shoot in that
mode is a true macro photograph.

For instance I had my macro lens on when I shot that raindrop but it isn't a
macro photo. The lens has macro capability but I did not utilize that
capability because I didn't get close enough.

And if I had all I would have had was a picture of a drop. It might have
been a less interesting photograph.
--
Pat Durkin

On 06/10/2010 15:49, Wendy7 wrote:
Top o' the day to ya Paddy my friend. Going all technical are ya now?
Pray tell can ye elaborate just a wee bit more then?
(My best Irish accent)

So for example, if you should try to take a Macro shot of a dime, what
has to be the same size? I have an icon on my Sony that shows macro?
(This is the part I don't understand?)
Cheers Wendy (who points & clicks)

Allow me comment here, too.

I have a close-up/macro and super-macro setting on my Canon SX-120. The
one focuses down to about 8" from the subject, the other to zero inches.
The normal lens setting focuses to about 18". With one I can get a good
clear picture of, say, a complete rose bloom, occupying about 1/2 to 3/4
of the frame. With the super macro, I can get a reasonable clear image
of the blooms center, and capture perhaps 1/2 or less of the bloom
within the frame. In terms of past uasge, the former is a close-up, the
latter a macro.

I think Patrick's definition of "macro" is incomplete, or perahps no
longer useful when it comes to digital cameras. In film camera days,
with large lenses and light sensors (films) measuring 24x36mm and
larger, "macro" did in fact imply an image on the film that was about
life size (or even larger). Digital sensors are typically much smaller.
The better "pro-sumer" cameras have sensors about 1/2 the size of a 35mm
film frame, while most sensors are considerably smaller than that, many
about the size of a fingernail. On such cameras "macro" cannot mean what
it meant for film cameras.

There is also the issue of how we refer to the size of the sensor, and
therefore (indirectly) to the size of the image. Sensors are measured in
pixels and in inches. Two different sized sensors with the same pixel
dimensions will record the same image, but on the physically larger one
the image overall will be larger. Adn that is quite common: different
pixle counts for cameras different cameras do not translate directly
into different physical sizes. (Not to mention software trickery that is
used to increase the "effective" pixel count.)

So IMO it would be better to think in terms of "how close can you get to
your subject, and a get good clear image with suitable depth of field?"
and "How much of the subject is captured in the frame?" Both of these
considerations will help compose the picture, which in the end is what
counts.

Close-up or macro, Patrick's Raindrop is a technically very well done
photograph, and a fabulous image.

cheers,
wolf k.