Nice work! Classic design, really well done, but using new technology.
from here the conversation usually continues and then I lack a quick term for non-micro non-macro photography
Well, there is always "close-up", a term that appears in some of the forum titles on this site. That would probably be my personal choice, because it's well known and seems appropriate to what you're doing.
Otherwise, it sounds like you're stuck with inventing a term, or finding a currently obscure one, and explicitly defining it on first use so that for sure the person you're conversing with will know what it means.
Walmsley's introduction of "Photo-macrography
" is an example of the general approach.
I personally would have no trouble with incorporating "meso", and then the question becomes exactly how to do that.
One obvious choice is "photomesography" as you suggest. That has a nice parallel construction with "photomicrography" and "photomacrography".
Another obvious choice is "meso photography", as two words. For me, at this moment
, this has the advantage of seeming just novel and not pretentious. It is also consistent with "micro photography" and "macro photography", which I think no one would seriously object to using in connection with very small and moderately small subjects. However, at this moment I also have the feeling that next week or next month, after the novelty wears off, I might come to prefer "photomesography" for its precision and lack of ambiguity.
I recommend against "mesophotography" as one word, since as noted above "microphotography" as one word is clearly distinguished by official sources as referring to small photographs, not small subjects.