When does Macro become Microscopy

[Steaphany]

As per this video:

[video=youtube;pHD1pGINaOI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHD1pGINaOI[/video]​

Sigma considers a lens suitable for Macro if the image projected on the imager, or film, is at least 1/3 the size of the subject. My example of Sigma lenses here is due to both my Sigma SA9 and SD14 having the SA mount and use the same lenses.

My question is, When does Macro Photography step beyond Macro and enter into the realm of Microscopy ?

I would not mind having a lens, whether for my 35mm cameras or for my medium format Mamiya RB67 Pro SD, that could capture subjects at 10:1, 10X, or even 25:1, 25X. ( At 25X, a 1mm subject would just exceed a 35mm frame )

 

[gone]

Depends on whether or not you have a Nikon lens. In Nikon Speak, a lens that is 1:1 reproduction or larger is a micro lens. If its not a Nikon lens, up to 1:1 reproduction is a macro lens. Beyond 1:1 reproduction is micro (or microscope) territory.

 

[Bill Burk]

I thought I had an answer from J. Harris Gable, "Complete Introduction to Photography" because it has phrases like "Do not confuse..."

But turns out you should not confuse "Photomacrograph" a picture taken where the subject is larger than life size on the negative... with "Macrophotograph" which is simply a big picture.

And you should not confuse "Photomicrography" which is photographs taken with a microscope... with "Microphotograph" which is a microscopic size photograph.

Great! Four answers but not one of them answers your question.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Depends on whether or not you have a Nikon lens. In Nikon Speak, a lens that is 1:1 reproduction or larger is a micro lens. If its not a Nikon lens, up to 1:1 reproduction is a macro lens. Beyond 1:1 reproduction is micro (or microscope) territory.

+1;that's my understanding as welll;up to 1:1 is macro; beyond it is micro.

 

[John Koehrer]

+1;that's my understanding as welll;up to 1:1 is macro; beyond it is micro.

Ayup, me too.

Did she actually say 1:4 is life size? That would be 1/4 life size, 1:1 is life size.

A lot of zooms use the term macro in their blurbs but I doubt that any are as sharp as a true macro design. That said, they may good enough for government work. That's like an old reference to "Eh! Good enough"

Nikon,Canon, Zeiss, Olympus all made true micros but are used with bellows.

Nikon seems to cloud the issue a bit calling their macro lenses "micro-nikkors"

 

[wiltw]

Olympus's OM was one of the most complete systems for both macro- and microphotography. What they say on the topic is determined by usage of a microscope, not determined merely by scale.

"Between the range of some 1/5 life size, through those magnifications where the size of the image on the film is the same as that of the actual subject in real life, and on to still larger images (up to some 16 times life size) is the magic territory we refer to as the world of macrophotography.
...When a photographic lens is used to take pictures at over about 10 times life size magnifications, a number of unfavorable factors come into prominence. The makes high magnification macrophotography very trying. At this point we find that microscope photography with the aid of the OM System Photomicro Group provides a more satisfactory answer."

The OM System Lens Handbook, Olympus Optical Co. Ltd., 1985

 

[Dan Fromm]

In Scientific Photomacrography, #31 in the RMS Microscopy Handbooks series, Brian Bracegirdle defines photography at magnifications up to 1x as closeup photography, at magnifications from 1x to 50x with a single stage of magnification as photomacrography, and above 50x with two stages of magnification (using a compound microscope) as photomicrography.

That said, all of these words are used loosely in most contexts so fighting to the death over what they really mean seems excessive.

 

[Ian Grant]

In Scientific Photomacrography, #31 in the RMS Microscopy Handbooks series, Brian Bracegirdle defines photography at magnifications up to 1x as closeup photography, at magnifications from 1x to 50x with a single stage of magnification as photomacrography, and above 50x with two stages of magnification (using a compound microscope) as photomicrography.

That said, all of these words are used loosely in most contexts so fighting to the death over what they really mean seems excessive.

I'd agree, macro photography is a lens on a camera photo-micrography is a camera attached to a microscope more usually, although we use the term photomicroscopy, of course there's an area of cross over. It's 40 years since I last used a camera with optical and electron microscopes.

Ian

 

[Nodda Duma]

When you can't see details of the subject with the unaided eye.

 

[Bosaiya]

When you can't see details of the subject with the unaided eye.

Then as with most things the meaning changes with age.

 

[Nodda Duma]

I must admit that I was assuming the reader would understand the details behind that statement. My apologies.

The unspoken technical detail is that the commonly accepted standard value for minimum angular feature size resolvable by the human eye is 1 arcminute. Features with an angular extant below 1 arcminute at the standard accommodation distance of 25 cm cannot be resolved by the human eye and would therefore be considered microscopic. That would correspond to an object less than about 72 um (0.003") in width. You can see a smaller than 0.003" object at that distance but you can't really resolve what it is with the unaided eye. Your mileage may vary but those are the industry standard values.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Jason, I think you're making this up. The terminology (closeup photography; photomacrography; photomicrography) is well-developed and has been in use for quite some time. See post 7 in this discussion for a reference.

I'm surprised no one has brought up microphotography which is usually taken to mean printing at substantial reductions. Spies' microdots are an example.

 

[Nodda Duma]

I don't make things up, Dan. I am an engineer. What does 50x really do for you other than be a seemingly arbitrary number. You are welcome to do your own research to make that connection and educate yourself.

 

[Bosaiya]

I don't make things up... I am an engineer.

Hot dang that's an instant classic if ever I heard one! It also explains not getting the joke earlier.

 

[removed account4]

In Scientific Photomacrography, #31 in the RMS Microscopy Handbooks series, Brian Bracegirdle defines photography at magnifications up to 1x as closeup photography, at magnifications from 1x to 50x with a single stage of magnification as photomacrography, and above 50x with two stages of magnification (using a compound microscope) as photomicrography.

That said, all of these words are used loosely in most contexts so fighting to the death over what they really mean seems excessive.

I have heard and read this same thing ... and I agree ...
close-up, micro and macro photography have come to mean differnt things over the years ...
but the foundation has always seemed to be what you said ...

 

[Dan Fromm]

I don't make things up, Dan. I am an engineer. What does 50x really do for you other than be a seemingly arbitrary number. You are welcome to do your own research to make that connection and educate yourself.

Jason, there are conventions. They're arbitrary but widely used. If we stick to them other people understand what we say. I reported the relevant conventions as they're generally understood and followed.

You're an engineer, probably not a photographer who does much work at magnifications greater than the typical lens for a 35 mm SLR can attain on its own mount or a microscopist. In other words, you're now probably out of your area of highest competence. I doubt you can claim expertise here and expect deference.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Dan I could say that every photograph you've claimed as yours was taken by someone else, and it would be very analogous to your accusations above. But I wouldn't, because that's not an accusation that one should make lightly. If you think my information is incorrect, then please present opposing arguments and we can discuss the assumptions and points of view like civilized adults. Better yet, ask for clarification. Don't just toss out accusations like a politician. Civility shouldn't end when you sit down in front of your computer. Unless you don't believe in civility, which could also be the case (I don't assume anything about people I don't know).

I'm pretty well versed on the Mk I eyeball and its limiting performance, as well as requirements for microscopes and microscopy. Instead of trying to score Internet forum points by calling people liars, you could stop and do some research. Hint: Look up visual acuity and do some math. Also see Ackerman, "Biophysical Science", Ch 2 pg. 48 although the entire chapter is very informative (the geometric model is dated). Or, don't look it up. Honestly I don't really care if you want to educate yourself or not.

The information I posted clarified a statement I made about the conventionally accepted size of a microscopic object. Nothing more, nothing less. I gave general information about microscopic objects as accepted by the optics industry. Your post talks in the specifics of photomicroscopy. So I'm not even sure why you felt the need to rebut.

Regardless, the definition is derived from the limiting resolution of the eye...many details of optical instrument specifications trace back to improving the eye's limits.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Jason, what a dangerous animal you are! When you think you're attacked you defend yourself.

We're discussing terminology, not optics -- your field, and I defer to your expertise there -- or the limits of human perception. As I said, there are conventions used by practitioners and I explained their meanings and cited a source. If you think I'm mistaken, well I could be. But if I am the best way to enlighten me is to give references to the language used by practitioners.

Amend what you read as 'liar' to 'off topic.'

 

[John Koehrer]

Then as with most things the meaning changes with age.

Guess he has no sense of humor.

 

[cliveh]

When can you apply the maths of quantum physics to photo microscopy?

 

[Nodda Duma]

Guess he has no sense of humor.

Well it wasn't like the joke was worth a ROFLcopter. Maybe a polite chuckle.

Actually, he raised a good point about the arbitrariness of the statement, and it was worth a discussion of the fundamentals behind the definition of microscopy. Boring for photographers I'm sure, and slightly off topic here, but important stuff for requirements definition in any optical system which interfaces to the eye. Every system with an eyepiece I've seen specs for or have designed in the past has used that math as the basis defining the eyepiece magnification requirements. Diopter ranges are specified to ensure compatibility with most folks' eyesight. I used to see -4 to +4 adjustment. In the past decade the requirement has shifted to -6 to +2. The shift was based on a study which, if I remember correctly, attributed the statistical change to increased use of computers and the longer time spent staring at the relatively near computer monitor.

 

[wildbillbugman]

I think that photo microscopy involves a camera mounted on a microscope. You can avoid a microscope using macro lenses and bellows extension and get enlarged images. But that is macrophotography, not photomiroscopy

 

[John Koehrer]

Well it wasn't like the joke was worth a ROFLcopter. Maybe a polite chuckle.

That would work. Sorta like Sheldon on Big Bang Theory.

 

[polyglot]

I always liked the "with a compound microscope" definition for microscopy. A macro lens is just a single-stage (non-compound) objective lens designed for relatively-close use. A microscope has two stages of image formation in order to get higher magnifications.

Photomicroscopy is probably implied when you're using advanced illumination techniques, i.e. anything other than "shine a light on it" - transmissive, cross-polarised, phase-contrast, etc.

 

[Les Sarile]

Macro . . .

Microscopy . . .