>> |
ilkore
File :-(, x)
>>221207 >>221208
we're actually both right, and both wrong.
that's why the subject is so fucked up.
nobody in the real world would fault you for calling your 20:1 photograph, macro. but, macro does mean that the object youre photographing is "close," to the same size, as it appears on the film/sensor. what "close" means, is up to interpretation.
in the macrophotography wikipedia article, they mention and show examples of the canon mpe-65, which is made to go well beyond 1:1
but, if you move away from the photography aspect, macroscopic is what you can view with your naked eye... that is, without the aid of external optics. anytime that you need to use optics to see something, that you otherwise wouldnt be able to see: youre now in the microscopic world.
pic related
|