----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The MICRO/MACRO thing is a marketing > term with no real hard fast definition. > JCO >
It's mostly true that the consumer end of the market doesn't appreciate the definitions of MICRO and MACRO. As an illustration, for many years Nikon has labelled its macro lenses as Micro-Nikkors, when it is patently obvious that they are intended neither for microphotography or photomicrography. There are definitions, but the crossover points between one type of photography and the next are blurred. PHOTOMICROGRAPHY is photography at extreme ranges of magnication, eg. through a microscope, or with specialised objectives such as Zeiss Proxars. MICROPHOTOGRAPHY is photography in extreme ranges of reduction, such as the microdot of spy movie notoriety. PHOTOMACROGRAPHY is the correct term for what is commonly but erroneously called macrophotography. It is generally accepted, as others have noted, to fall within the range of 0.5X to 10X magnification. MACROPHOTOGRAPHY is something I can't readily define, because my photography college notes are long gone. Rest assured that something about it is big, I vaguely remember that it involves very, very big sheets of sensitized material (and thus opposite to microphotography). I also suspect that the last usage is for all purposes obselete, and the word "macrophotography" has been popularly transferred to the definition of "photomacrography". Just my curmudgeonly contribution in the absence of anything on this matter from Greywolf. regards, Anthony Farr
