Suggestions for new contests

[Bruce]

How about a contest showing "What I did when CactiGuide was down"?

[Jens]

Yeah Bruce let´s go for the best nose-picking pic.

[Bruce]

I was thinking more pics of people cleaning their garages or walking their dogs, but, hey, yours would work, too.

[Jens]

[daiv]

Or how about hitting "refresh" over and over again on the Hostgator trouble-ticket page to see it there is an answers to what was going on and where that backup is???

[Andy_CT]

How about a contest showing "What I did when CactiGuide was down"?

Lots and lots of free internet porn. Best site is http://opuntiads.com/O/

[Peterthecactusguy]

Andy,
LoL. I go to that page sometimes but it makes me sad.. all those Opuntia that I don't have a home for because I can't find them oh well I can make myself feel better by lookign at my Opuntia gardens.

[DaveW]

If you use the term "macro" you will need to define what you mean? Strictly speaking the term macro, which is often misused in photography even by professionals and photo journal editors, means an image of 1:1 (x1 or life sized on the sensor) or larger. Anything less than this is strictly a close-up. However the problem there is a head and shoulders portrait of a person is also called a close-up. The usual definition of close-up for our type of purposes though is from 1:4 or from one quarter life size on the sensor to life size and this is what many would call macro photography in this case.

http://www.photofairy.net/tutorials/clo ... otography/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The problem is many photographers don't understand what magnification they are using, so you need to define in simple to understand terms just what type of images qualify for your competition.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/651997 ... nification" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jens]

Thanks for the inspiring links Dave.
So we should better use the term close up for enouncement of a contest of ´macro´shots. I am sure a lot of people are going to be quite happy for a few technical comments on how to make a better picture for any running contest.

[majcka]

If you use the term "macro" you will need to define what you mean? Strictly speaking the term macro, which is often misused in photography even by professionals and photo journal editors, means an image of 1:1 (x1 or life sized on the sensor) or larger. Anything less than this is strictly a close-up. However the problem there is a head and shoulders portrait of a person is also called a close-up. The usual definition of close-up for our type of purposes though is from 1:4 or from one quarter life size on the sensor to life size and this is what many would call macro photography in this case.

http://www.photofairy.net/tutorials/clo ... otography/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The problem is many photographers don't understand what magnification they are using, so you need to define in simple to understand terms just what type of images qualify for your competition.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/651997 ... nification" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OK Dave. I'm glad you pointed that out. But.....How many profesional photographers are on this forum as opposed to amateur??? I only have a Canon Power Shot A1100 and if I put it on P (as programe) it has 3 options: Infinity, normal or macro. So.... You want to tell me that macro isn't necesary a macro if I don't get my photo object just right??? It means that the picture the sensors get is the same size as the real object is (or bigger)? Did I got it right?

[DaveW]

What I am saying Maja is that you need to define not so much how large a magnification you will allow in a "macro" contest, but how small a one. Close-ups in the macro sense used to be defined from where a standard lens could focus no closer without extra aids like supplementary close up lenses or extension tubes. In those days somewhere around 1:4 or quarter life size on the film/sensor. These days standard lenses are seldom used on cameras, with the close focusing zoom having largely replaced them.

Automatically using something with macro on it does not make it so. My Micro Nikkor may be called a macro lens but it focuses seamlessly all the way from infinity to photograph complete landscapes to 1:1 to photograph something 1cm high and exactly 1cm in size on the cameras sensor. So what part of it's focusing range would be eligible in a Macro contest? What indeed would even constitute a close-up. A close up of a Saguaro could show the full plant 30ft high rather than a landscape full of them! Therefore you need to set a minimum magnification for inclusion in a contest.

The macro setting on your camera would qualify, though I cannot find a specification for your camera with the magnification range given for the macro setting, only "closest focus distance 3 cm". I am not sure therefore with your camera if the macro mode just gives a fixed magnification, or if simply focusing the lens from different distances allows you to alter the magnification? The problem of course with such a small working distance is avoiding the lens casting a shadow on the subject.

Most interchangeable lens cameras do not have macro modes, the magnification obtained simply being how close the lens is focused and what lens is used. Usually like mine their lenses can focus all the way from infinity to right up close, so where does your macro range start? Unless you define it somebody might say "well I took it with a macro lens" if people queried it was taken at a large enough magnification to qualify.

This could be called a close-up, but would it qualify for your macro contest Maja?

Espostoa2.jpg (98.52 KiB) Viewed 19201 times

[majcka]

OK let see if I get this. For I am a person of visualisation I understand things easier if I see them. If I understand this right it would go like this:

542px-Lens3_sl_svg.png (17.12 KiB) Viewed 19198 times

On the left side is the subject on the right side is the picture of it. If the picture is at least as big as the object is, then we get macro. If not we don't have macro. Is that so??????

[DaveW]

According to Lester Lefkowitz and Kodak these were the correct definitions:-

Close-up Photography = photographing subjects at between 1:10 and 1:1 (usually called Macrophotography by the photo press!)

Photomacrography = photography using the camera and usually extension from 1:1 upwards. (still called Macrophotography by the photo press!)

Photomicrography = photography through the microscope.

Macrophotography = making very large photographs e.g. advertising hoardings or large display photographs.

Microphotography = making very small photographs e.g. microfilm or microdots so beloved by spy writers in James Bond type novels.

However I once conveyed this to a photo journal editor, obviously just a general photographer, and he claimed everybody in the industry knew it was Macrophotography not Photomacrography or they would all be calling it that. However if you search the Web for Photomacrography you will find most scientists in the field use this as the correct term for magnifications greater than 1:1, not Macrophotography, which Kodak claimed was making very large prints or pictures.

I now often use the language of the web sites unless I am dealing with specialist photographers that know the term Photomacrography Maja!

If you really want to go into the subject Maja and the historical definition of macro photography etc it was dealt with on a specialist site for close-up photography I used to be on some years ago:-

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... .php?t=874" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... sc&start=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jens]

What I am saying Maja is that you need to define not so much how large a magnification you will allow in a "macro" contest, but how small a one.

This could be called a close-up, but would it qualify for your macro contest Maja?

The attachment Espostoa2.jpg is no longer available

Very intreresting discussion here, so we should definately put a closeup / macro topic in the 2013 contest scedule .

Dave, you are right that someone could insist of the espostoa picture having been photographed with a macro lens so it should be callled a close up photo.--- But I don´t think this picture would be a winnning picture of the contest.

Since this basically is an amateur photo contest we don´t need to define the rules of entering a picture that closely. In the end it counts which picture was the one that most people liked most. Often enough this largely depends on the subject which was photographed and in the second line how good /bad the photo was made technically.

In the end the primary aim of these photo contest is to have fun making them and looking at nice pictures taken by other forumites.

Lobivia famatimensis v. bonniae FK96 2012 Mai14-9.jpg (85.06 KiB) Viewed 19182 times

[DaveW]

The easiest way is to say the contest is for pictures of the area photographed of say no more than 12cm high (or whatever measurement is chosen) or less Jens. That is better understood by people who would not understand magnification.

The question of whether the correct term is macrophotography or photomacrography and what area close-up photography covers is really just which is the correct terminology Maja. The scientific fraternity differing in what is the correct terminology from the amateur photo magazines and often non-scientific professional photographers.

http://www.g-w.com/pdf/sampchap/9781605254761_ch07.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In defining 1:1 though you are correct, in that at that magnification and whatever sized camera or sensor is used, the subject projected onto the sensor or film by the lens is exactly the same size as the subject itself. For instance if we had a 12mm high sensor and we filled it with a 12mm subject we would be photographing that subject at 1:1. If we had the larger 24mm high sensor at 1:1 the 12mm subject would only take up half the height of the frame. If we filled the height of the 24mm sensor with the 12mm high subject we would be photographing it at 2:1, or twice life size. Therefore the designation 1:1 (or magnification ratio) is independent of sensor size and just means what size the subject appears on the sensor.

Note however that is not the magnification we see on our computer screen, or in the final print, since we then enlarge the sensor image to whatever size we want. However unless we then crop the original image it will still only show the area of the subject our camera originally took. That is why they quote the magnification at the taking stage because final magnification is dependent on how much you enlarge the image afterwards. For instance you could enlarge a 1:1 image to fill an advertisement hoarding, then it would obviously be many times life size. Jens picture above has obviously been enlarged much more than it's size on his cameras sensor, which if it were the common DSLR, APS-C sized sensor would only be around 16.7mm high.

This article may be of interest:-

http://www.bythom.com/qadmacro.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;