Re: Re[2]: 35mm vs 8x10 macro

[Andre Langevin]

 > That makes sense to me.  Basically it is impossible to capture
more detail than exists.  So if the actual subject is smaller than
your film size, it will not be able to capture any more.

Until we get past macro, into real close up photography.
One of my PUG subjects was an American dime, shot on the 6x7,
with a reversed M series 50mm camera lens mounted to the 6x7
bellows. It had to be at least an 8x magnification on the film,
and I bet it was more than that.
http://pug.komkon.org/02mar/dime.html
is pretty close to being a full frame representation of the
negative. The gallery image doesn't do justice to the amount of detail I
captured.]

William Robb

I'd like to understand something.

We are in front of 2 settings:

(1) a reversed lens on a bellows to photograph an 18mm dime at a 2X magnification on 35mm film (it fills the width of the film)

(2) the same reversed lens on the 6X7 with enough distance to get a 4X magnification (it fills the width of the film)

Which negative have more information?

And if the lens is doing better optically at 2X than 4X?

Andre

--