on 2012-06-16 7:28 Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote
"Macro" is an abbreviation of "photomacrography" which by strict definition is the capture of subjects at 1:1 or greater magnifications. Here's a good recent paper on the subject (circa 2006): http://www.a-p-s.org.au/pdfs/articles/macro.pdf
interesting paper, but not much of an etymology of the term, only "is usually defined as"
from casual research the term photomacrograph has a mid-century origin (dictionary.com) and fairly obviously stems from "macrograph", which several sources agree is an image at about life size or larger, but not magnified so much as to be a "micrograph"; there's no formal cut-off for macro- vs. micro- though some definitions say macrographic subjects should be big enough to be seen with the naked eye
popular usage having reduced the term to simply "macro", the Greek root which means basically "large", it seems natural to let it have a looser definition than the much less-used term photomacrograph
in any case, it made more sense applying it to film as 1:1 or greater since contact prints from larger formats kept the dimensions of the projected image; but that definition ignores the resolving capacity of the film or sensor (imagine a nice, blurry Holga "macro")
i think digital photography's range of sensors sizes and pixel densities makes 1:1 projection a much less meaningful definition; i would propose instead to evaluate macro performance based on resolution of small detail in close subjects, which effectively combines the lens and sensor performance (e.g. MTF), but also involves close-focus performance of the lens (including flatness of field); when this performance reaches or exceeds the ability of the best human eyes to see such detail, i'd call it macro
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
