1:1 Macro Photography (Limit: 2 posts per 24 hour period)
1:1 ratio and Bigger
Robyn Carter
117 posts
|
|
Mary Campbell
660 posts
|
1:1 ratio I believe you mean 1:1 lens magnification ratio vs 1:1 cropping ratio. I think if you’re not specific in your terminology you could confuse people, who can also crop with a 1:1 cropping ratio and not get anything close to a macro image.. |
|
Robyn Carter
117 posts
|
Hi Mary, I think there may be a game of semantics. lol….. If you want to be totally accurate there is no lens magnification. Hence the 1:1 ratio. IE. Object is 25mm X 35mm and a full sensor is 25mm X 35mm. I think the true problem lays in the fact that smaller point and shoot cameras often have even smaller sensor sizes. Therefore, as with most photographers, I tend to use the common standard of 35mm. If you are still a little unsure then just consider filling the viewfinder with the image, that would be appropriate. As the hosts on this site are certainly not monsters that attack images with a micrometer to ascertain their absolute size. A cropping ratio of 1:1 would be the same size so there would be no point in considering that. Robyn |
Mike Finley
705 posts
|
Macro is defined as (about) 1:1 ratio on the image sensor (whether the sensor is film or digital). The definition of macro predates the dominance of 35mm cameras (and possibly there existence) and has nothing to do with an object size of 25mm x 35 mm is this image |
Ken Boxsell
139 posts
|
Hi Mike That sounds very intriguing. I would certainly love to read more on your thoughts about macro. Please enlighten me Mik |
|
Mike Finley
705 posts
|
not sure what you’re asking for Ken. All I’ve said is that a macro photograph is one with an approx 1:1 ratio between image size on the sensor and subject size, which is the classical definition for macro, and that used in the group rules. If I uploaded the image to redbubble and submitted it to this group, now that its moderated, the hosts would have to make such a decision to decide whether to accept it. |
|
Ken Boxsell
139 posts
|
I am not really much of a flower guy (names and sizes) However to be quite honest about the pic Mike if I cant be certain I let them in. I am only guessing but because of our recent conversations I think it is a large format pic. |
J.K. York
154 posts
|
Mike is correct about the 1:1. even with a 4×5” negative or a 35mm, 1:1 is still the same. I also am not familiar with flowers. one of us hosts needs to get a flower field guide i suppose :) one inch of object is represented by one inch on negative or sensor. fundamental, if you place a 1:1 negative of a coin on a lighttable, then the coin itself should match the negative exactly in diameter when placed on the negative. difficult to make the same example with digital but i’ll try. if your monitor is set to the same resolution you shot your image then when the unedited image is imported at 100% you will be ready to test for 1:1. use a ruler. take a macro shot of the ruler. import image. turn on rulers in your image editing program. the rulers should be of the same scale at 1:1. cheers, James |
|
Mike Finley
705 posts
|
Well, that might allow you to determine the size of the object, but you still won’t be able to determine if its a 1:1 image because you do not know the size of the sensor. You can’t even make a reasonable guess at the size of the sensor, as it could be an 11×14 inch view camera (unlikely to be larger, but possible!) or it could be a digital sensor in a digital compact (probably less than half an inch on the longer side, possibly much less). Your test using the monitor would be correct – the difficulty is first in finding out what the resolution of the sensor actually is in pixels per inch, and then in setting that up on the monitor. (The ppi recorded in the image file is unlikely to be anything like the real ppi) |
