Exploring Macro Photography

Old Technique,

New Examples

Please visit my updated Macro folder for an overview and my general thoughts about macro photography.

Macro photographs are often described as photographs taken with a macro lens! Sounds unhelpful, right? But macro lenses do what we want when we want it—create an impression of our photographic subject in camera that is just the size of the subject. The ratio of internal and external images is 1:1.

Some more generous souls are willing to include shots taken with other sorts of lenses and then cropped as needed so that the subject fills the photo. The final results bear resemblance to macro photos.

For me, the EFFECT created in a macro photo is everything, Usually that means a very shallow depth of field so that the subject is “tack sharp” and the remainder, the subject’s context, is intentionally blurred.

I like "Primrose and ant, original" as an example. I discuss the edited version at the end of this post.

The photo below-- "Grasshopper macro, original" was taken with a 60mm prime macro lens. The subject almost gets lost in its context. But is the image any less a macro because of that? I say no.

Titled Grasshopper macro, original copy.jpg

Is the different version of the photo "Grasshopper macro, edited" more truly a macro when cropped so that the grasshopper appears larger than my whole camera (as opposed to the image on the chip inside it)? Not in my understanding!

Macro photography is a way of capturing very fine detail. The image below (Purple Flower 1st edit) does that, and a very closely cropped version would show more of the reflection in the droplet (or droplets).

But I shot it with a long lens that no one would call macro— a 300mm prime lens. At least after cropping an image with "macro potential," such a lens can bring the subject in close enough to achieve some of the effect of macro photography.

The cropping I am talking about is but one thing I do in “post,” “post-processing,” i.e. editing. I aim to craft a COMPOSITION that I like and you might, too. I love doing that in Lightroom and Photoshop. But it is important to do as much composing in the camera as possible.

The image below ("Purple flower, 2nd edit") shows why that is true. I intend for the flower at the right edge of the edited photo to be the main draw, the thing that draws your eye to it. A macro lens might have forced me to compose in camera. That way I have more to work with in editing and less to worry about or get rid of.

Now I want to come full circle. The top-most image, "Primrose and ant, original" was shot with a 30mm prime macro lens. I held the camera and lens extremely close to the subject. Not bad, and a true macro shot-- what you see reflects the 1:1 ratio between the sizes of the physical subject and the image on the sensor. Still, I like how the version below-- "Flower and ant, edited"-- even more!

I admit it--I love editing photos! You have to love the editing process to survive and thrive as a photographer, unless you are into shooting film. "Flower and ant" is a favorite of mine, largely because it represents what I like so much about macro photography:

1) I get real pleasure out of contemplating the sharp image swimming in mystery (intentional blur, and

2) the level of detail in the flower and ant moves me at a deep level.