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.