Yes, because macro can be achived by cropping the image.
Admitted, technically it is a complete difference to do it manually and just crop pixels, but if we are allowed to do, it could result in differences like with this attempt of mine.
Cropped from 4000x3000 to 50% at 2000x1500:





It is a 1.5cm bush rose blossom.

I cropped My photo. Am I discolofied?

Whoho. Im out!

Also, the fish is much bigger and bader in real life I think we need a new rule: Size matters

I don't care if it's big or small, it's beer o'clock!!

I wouldn't trust that guy. He's unreliable. Irresponsible. Throw in undependable.

But whether one's pic is life size -- or any particular size -- for any particular viewer is awfully dependent on stuff out of the photographer's control. It'll be up to the judges to decide -- high stakes as this is, right?

BTW, the sunburst on the beer bottle is about 9 inches tall on my monitor viewed at a 1:1 pixel ratio. That's ~0.5 cubits if you use the metric system. Obviously I don't have one of those super-high-res displays -- I paid for those pixels, I want to see 'em!

This. It filled up my whole monitor (with the image at only 24%), making it MUCH larger than a real bottle of beer. If viewed on the wrong (read: small) screen those mushrooms might not be larger than actual size either.

I have always used the assumption that macro meant super close-up. No math involved, no deep thought or consideration. Just a real close-up shot. With the focal lengths being what they are on certain smartphone cameras, this might not be possible- but we try!

Oh yes, the so-called "digital zoom".

In my mind, it does not matter how you made that picture. Move your camera close to the subject, take the photo through a microscope, crop, beg, borrow or steal... the only thing that matters and defines it as macro is that the resulting picture shows larger than the real life subject on the display medium.

By that definition a billboard of a car can be a macro if that billboard is large enough so I agree that the definition is a bit fuzzy.

In my opinion a macro is all about the resolution of detail.
A well done macro picture needs to reveal details one could otherwise hardly appreciate with the naked eye.
This is up to lens / sensor / film and of course skill of the photographer to focus correctly and eliminate motion blur.

To review the marco, the display medium (screen / paper print) should be capable to display the necessary amount of graphic image data from the original file or film in order for the viewer to observe the enhanced detail not visible throught normal observation.

The display / paper should be large enough and have enough resolution to reveal all graphic data at once or in case of screen display it can be achieved by zooming in on parts of interest to confirm marco nature of the image.


In theory a mini display with an insane pixel density could still display the macro photo with all enhanced details inherent to a macro but for the observer it would be pointless unless he was going to zoom in partially and / or use a magnifying glass over the mini displsay to confirm this is in fact a macro image.

To only blow things up larger than life but out of focus does not qualify for a macro if looking at the original with the naked eye still reveals more details.

Below cropped shot with a Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge blows up the subject well enough but hardly reveals more detail compared to real life so with my current level of eyesight I personally would call this an average macro picture and camera.

I take issue with the "hardly reveals more detail compared to real life" bit. In fact I frequently use my phone to read labels on products because I cannot read them otherwise. Your zika () mosquito is just another example of the same thing. As far as I am concerned, it reveals a tremendous amount of detail compared to real life

I think the Aedes mosquito has bigger, whiter spots than that lovely closeup of a nasty creature. That's some great detail in that photo!

I see what you did there.

(BTW, I've never actually wished that the subject of one of our photo contests be killed before. It was killed after posing for that photo, wasn't it, ste-phan?)

Seed head, Rattlesnake master.

Eryngium yuccifolium. A plant native to the central and eastern prairies of North America. This example is deliberately cultivated by the photographer. When in bloom, the flowers appear like white puffballs. Unlike some gardeners, I prefer not to cut down the spent stalks -- they're stiff enough to remain upright through the winter, and look attractive with frost or snow on them. As the binomial suggests, it does have leaves that resemble a yucca.

Photo shot with N9 and stock camera. Homemade "macro" setup consisting of pocket-sized magnifying glass held in front of lens. Kinda gives a trippy bokeh, I think.