does this qualify as macro ???

[bradzo66]

sorry limited knowledge of terms started a mponth ago and cramming hard and loved finding this site any help would be greatly appreciated !

[Nathan deGargoyle]

Unless that's a really big spider I reckon that's probably getting close but maybe not quite 1:1 on your sensor which is the pedantic definition of macro. Good start though!

[cabbagepatchkid]

Great picture but it gives me the shivers!

[bradzo66]

Originally Posted by cabbagepatchkid

Great picture but it gives me the shivers!

I am totally arachnophobic so it wasn't that easy to take , and as mentioned may not be to the definition of macro so ill keep trying. I only started taking photos in jan 09 so am struggling to sponge all of the info and opinions , thanks guys your comments provide inspiration to do better !!

[algorithm21]

I have seen some big Huntsman spiders but not THAT BIG ! So I reckon your photo qualifies as a macro, nice shot of the fangs.

The depth of field is great what camera & lens are you using ?

A shot of a Funnel Web spider would be good to see if you can safely get close to one don't die in the attempt they are a very dangerous beast. We sure are lucky here in Australia if it bites we have it in spades

[bradzo66]

Originally Posted by algorithm21

I have seen some big Huntsman spiders but not THAT BIG ! So I reckon your photo qualifies as a macro, nice shot of the fangs.

The depth of field is great what camera & lens are you using ?

A shot of a Funnel Web spider would be good to see if you can safely get close to one don't die in the attempt they are a very dangerous beast. We sure are lucky here in Australia if it bites we have it in spades

I used a cannon 40d with sigma 150-500 with 2x converter .We do have plenty of funnel webs here on the upper north shore of Sydney so i will see what i can do for you . Thanks for yr time guys !

[daft_biker]

Originally Posted by bradzo66

I used a cannon 40d with sigma 150-500 with 2x converter .We do have plenty of funnel webs here on the upper north shore of Sydney so i will see what i can do for you . Thanks for yr time guys !

Photograph a ruler - if you can fit 22mm or less accross the width of the frame then it's a macro. In macro 1mm in real life is recorded as 1mm (or more) on the sensor.

I don't think it is but suspect you're not too far off.....maybe you've got 2mm of subject for every 1mm of sensor (half lifesize) meaning the width of the area photographed would be 44mm?

Cool spider anyway

[bradzo66]

Originally Posted by daft_biker

Photograph a ruler - if you can fit 22mm or less accross the width of the frame then it's a macro. In macro 1mm in real life is recorded as 1mm (or more) on the sensor.

I don't think it is but suspect you're not too far off.....maybe you've got 2mm of subject for every 1mm of sensor (half lifesize) meaning the width of the area photographed would be 44mm?

Cool spider anyway

Nicely explained im still trying to nail it .Have a few that i think are very close but cant post new images because of some wretched security token issue !!!!!!

[NIX74]

Guess the easiest way to tell whether the photo is a marco photo is to know how big is the spider compare to the camera's sensor size.

Assuming your camera sensor size is 2.5cm and the spider is 1cm in size, then your photo is a marco. That's how i understand about marco photo.

However looking at the picture, seems like the spider is much larger the camera's sensor

[bradzo66]

the spider is the size of my hand , its as big as the circumference of the lense i used to take the photo !!! This is not a little spider, these things are huge ! This was probably about 3 inches( about 9 cm ) from tip of leg to tip of leg .