It's not macro. That's just close ups. True macro, we would be looking at the veins or whatever they're called on the petals, or the pollen in the centre. Also everything else in the background would be out of focus.
Here's one I did last summer, it's not a true macro either, but it's a little closer.
Notice the hairs on the butterfly's back? If it was a true macro, we would be looking at that more intensely. Also notice how the background is nicely out of focus. That's called bokeh. Most macros you would see more of that, but notice how even just an inch away, like the end tail bit of the wing, it starts to loose focus?
I was using a DSLR, and the lens I used was a 35-70 2.8 with a claimed macro settings. I say claimed, because it's not a true macro lens. This lens would be considered high end amateur, low end professional, so it's not cheap, but affordable for what it is. So considering the quality, I'm just saying just cause it say's it has a macro setting, it's usually just a marketing term to sell camera's and lens. True macro lens are very expensive, and the best ones are usually use bellows just so you can get it to focus so close.
(wondering why I can't link pics to ehmac today?)