If the negative showed the subject at twice its real life size, that was a 2 to 1 ratio. If the negative
showed the subject at half its real life size, it would be a 1 to 2 ratio and since it was less than full
size (1:1), it would be considered close-up photography, not macro photography.
If you are shooting the eyes of a fly and the actual image on the negative is larger than the size of
the actual fly’s eye, that’s macro photography.
Whew... all that to say that since we are no longer using film, the terms have become somewhat
moot. You could treat the electronic photo sensor of your camera like a negative and hold it up to
the light – but you aren’t going to see anything.
Nowadays the definition has shifted more to the printed photograph. If the image on the finished
print is life size or greater, it is considered macro.
I’m sure the purists out there clinging to the macro vs. close-up definitions will get upset if the
terms are used incorrectly, but in real life the terms are used interchangeably. If I refer to a close-
up photograph as macro or vice versa later in this book, please don’t write to explain the
difference. I know the difference and now, so do you.
Unless you spend a LOT of money buying special macro lenses, most of your shooting will be
done with regular lenses that are NOT made for macro photography - even though they have a