Reply to thread

Not in one exposure, no.

We are talking technical definition though.

Things have changed since macro was conceived. We now have affordable lenses that both magnify and have extremely close focus. Taking the shot is infinitely cheaper now as well.

When I did film macro, say, fungi in the woods, I would be using 400 or 800 iso film. This limited the size of enlargement possible, anything above an 8 x 10 would look like a painting using sand as a medium. Therefore to make an impact, a small subject had to fill the frame. The incredibly shallow depth of field was very hard to judge with an slr, so it was a very hit and miss process. Add to that, you had to wrestle with an angry octopus called Benbo and apply additional light with a somewhat unpredictable ring flash. Image stabilisation was still in the hands of NASA and the military.

Then of course most of us had to rely on Boots or Kwikprint to develop for us. It was an expensive and often unproductive exercise.

Things have changed, I can now reliably handhold at a fiftieth of a second while seeing my image in real life through the evf, relying on natural light and enlarge the image to almost any size I want.

I'd say most of what is being shown is more close up photography, but essentially the name doesn't matter.

True unedited macro photography can be stunning, I must get out and apply myself. Perhaps a competition theme, Tim?