See below... Dr E D F Williams wrote: > > Now that is absolutely wrong Bill, > > The image size and amount of detail will be the same - but probably better > in the case of 35 mm because the optics are usually better corrected. You > can't make a 1:1 image of an object half an inch wide any better on a piece > of film the size of a football field. We are talking about an object that > will fit your film at 1:1 - in other words something that is less than an > inch high. You could use a piece of film 5 mm square, for a small object, > and get the same or better resolution as your giant camera. > > This is my whole point and no one seems to get it. They didn't last year and > they still don't. I'll repeat it several ways. There is nothing to beat 35 > mm when the object is small enough to fit on the film at 1:1 or greater for > that matter. Because there will be nothing more on your big piece of Pan F > than there will be on my little piece of Pan F. The object will be - say - 5 > mm wide on my frame and 5 mm wide on your big sheet. Where are you going > to get the extra 'info/data' as you put it? You could effectively tape a > piece of 35 mm film into a holder and use it in your whacking great camera > and get a worse result because the big lenses are not better, but are > actually not as good as most of those used for 35mm work. It's the same with > microscopy and working with the Questar telescope, or any telescope. The > image that exits from the pupil of the instrument fits neatly onto 35 mm. > There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to be gained by using a bigger piece > of film. Except a variety of troublesome problems. > > I haven't mentioned that the great big sheet of film in your 8 x 10 view > camera is not going to be as flat as the roll in my 35 mm P30 either. Unless > you use a vacuum back. Nor have we touched upon depth of field. You can, > with movements, get some of that, but it might be very difficult to see what > the hell is going on. I've tried this kind of thing before with a 5 x 4 > Linhof, not a whacking great Kardan or other monorail, and found it fraught > with difficulty. > > This is why I like taking macros. I can get the very best results possible > with equipment that > doesn't cost and arm and a leg. I know for a fact that a 35 mm camera with > a good lens can't be beat for what I'm trying to do. This supposes of course > that I can focus, compose, process and do all the dozen other things that > are needed along the way. The same goes for photomicrography and taking > pictures through various other optical systems where the image will fit the > 35 mm format. Besides 35 mm film is superior in a number of ways to anything > bigger (not glass plates) but that can be left for the moment. > > So - where the final image will fit on the film, there is nothing to be > gained by using a larger format.
I know that, you know that, and I'm surprised so few folks seem to believe it! The single thing gained is not having to enlarge the film image as much if at all, for viewing. You usually do on 35mm, you essentially don't on LF stuff. If you took a 35mm film image and enlarged it exactly 3 times, and did the same thing with 4x5, 5x7, whatever, the resolution and image quality on the print would almost match, with the 35 having a very, very slight edge. At 3X, probably not that much... You'll never get most of the MFers and LFers to admit that... Those guys who wax elequent about the lack of grain and the 'information' in the print, compared to 35mm prints, invariably fail to mention that their negative was hardly blown up at all! Do that and it's still apples and oranges! That's why I mostly get out the magnifying glass when I get film developed. I'd _much_ rather look at a color negative or positive thru a 10X flat field glass than any print you can make. It's there I se the sharpness and the shadow detail that's almost certainly missing from all of my prints. I get the most pleasure out of what the negative shows. It proves my equipment is as capable as I thought it was... I know what my camera, and especially my 35mm lenses can do, but the prints never show it. I find 35mm just fine. It would be nice if I could get a decent, accurate print of what I shoot, that compares with what I see thru my loupe! keith whaley > Don > > Dr E D F Williams > > http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams > Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery > Updated: March 30, 2002 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill D. Casselberry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 6:47 PM > Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro > > > Dr E D F Williams wrote: > > > > > > Bob, > > > > > > I think you answered too quickly without fully getting the point. I > didn't > > > say, or imply, that because this matter had been discussed before it > should > > > not be again. You jumped to that conclusion. Furthermore, after > re-reading > > > what I wrote, I think its perfectly clear that I'm talking about one > > > instance where 35 mm is superior to larger formats in sharpness and > > > everything else. The ratios I quote are reproduction ratios and have > nothing > > > whatsoever to do with the ratios of the sides of a frame as you say - > but > > > The point I was replying to - missing here - is that a larger format > > > does not mean better quality - in one particular case at least. A > > > picture taken at 1:1 on 35 mm will usually be superior in sharpness > > > and quality to one taken on 10 x 8 at 1:1 *because the 35 mm lenses are > > > invariably better corrected* than those for larger formats. > > > > Ummm - not so sure, myself. Seems to me that a 1:1 done on > > an 8x10 monorail w/ the necessary extension would hold its > > own quite nicely against an 8x enlargment from even an ex- > > cellent 35mm macro set-up. Upon enlargment the compressed > > "info/data" on the 35mm film couldn't match the definition > > and detail captured directly onto the larger film. > > > > Bill > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast > > > > http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------- > >
