I'm curious how others define 'close-up' when it comes to categorizing a photo's perspective, particularly as it relates to pictures of people. I think most would agree that a close-up has to be something that gives you a detailed view of the subject. A full-frame headshot would be the most obvious example, but a full-body shot could be a close-up as well if taken from a short distance. I've been trying to settle on a rough guideline using the percentage of the frame occupied by the person, such as 50% or more, assuming that person is the sole or primary subject. I realize that there will always be some degree of subjectivity to something like this, but my engineer brain has a hard time accepting that. Any one have a general rule of thumb that has proven useful?
JT
How do you define 'close-up'?
Re: How do you define 'close-up'?
I dodge that by just cataloging people in one of the nested categories portrait::half body::headshot (where portrait implies a full body shot)...
-
Mike Buckley
- Posts: 1194
- Joined: 10 Jul 08 13:18
Re: How do you define 'close-up'?
I basically use the term to explain that the image is something less than a true macro image. So, I would never use it to describe an image of a person unless it was a very small detail of the person, such as an adult hand, a baby's foot or something similar that fills the entire frame.
Re: How do you define 'close-up'?
This is a tricky one...
I generally agree with Mike though I would slightly broaden his definition: a close-up for me is any photo of some detail. A macro-photo thus is a close-up too. A photo of a hand for example, where one can see the fingerprint lines on the skin is macro.
Perhaps some hierarchy helps:
close-up: a
any detail, a photo of something close, not from a distance...
macro:
a photo with a reproduction rate of at least 1:2 (i.e., where the object on the film/sensor is at least 1/2 the size as it is in reality), true macro lenses achieve a 1:1 reproduction rate (the object on the film/sensor is identical in size to the size of the object in reality) anything beyond needs a bellows (though Canon produces a lens capable to magnification rates up to 5:1)
micro:
a photo with a reproduction rate beyond 5:1 (that is: the image detail captured by the camera's film/sensor is at least 5 times larger than the real size of the object photographed); typically such high magnification rates need some sort of microscope setup, reversing a wide-angle lens on a bellows might get that far, but conventional camera lenses don't.
Nikon (idiotically) calls its macro-lenses "micro", clearly a completely unfounded euphemism.
Now, here is the tricky part: with quite a few macro setups you'll need to be pretty close to the subject, but not always. Some macro-lenses allow for a large working distance. Also: not all macro photos capture only a detail, often they capture entire objects, just very minute ones.
OK - all that goes much beyond the original question posted here.
Like Mike I would not typically call a portrait a close-up - unless it is just a close detail of the face...
I generally agree with Mike though I would slightly broaden his definition: a close-up for me is any photo of some detail. A macro-photo thus is a close-up too. A photo of a hand for example, where one can see the fingerprint lines on the skin is macro.
Perhaps some hierarchy helps:
close-up: a
any detail, a photo of something close, not from a distance...
macro:
a photo with a reproduction rate of at least 1:2 (i.e., where the object on the film/sensor is at least 1/2 the size as it is in reality), true macro lenses achieve a 1:1 reproduction rate (the object on the film/sensor is identical in size to the size of the object in reality) anything beyond needs a bellows (though Canon produces a lens capable to magnification rates up to 5:1)
micro:
a photo with a reproduction rate beyond 5:1 (that is: the image detail captured by the camera's film/sensor is at least 5 times larger than the real size of the object photographed); typically such high magnification rates need some sort of microscope setup, reversing a wide-angle lens on a bellows might get that far, but conventional camera lenses don't.
Nikon (idiotically) calls its macro-lenses "micro", clearly a completely unfounded euphemism.
Now, here is the tricky part: with quite a few macro setups you'll need to be pretty close to the subject, but not always. Some macro-lenses allow for a large working distance. Also: not all macro photos capture only a detail, often they capture entire objects, just very minute ones.
OK - all that goes much beyond the original question posted here.
Like Mike I would not typically call a portrait a close-up - unless it is just a close detail of the face...