GW, "Believe me folks were ... " why should we? You don't seem to get the point at all. All you're doing is trying to avoid it, by introducing one red herring after another.
I was using Lumitars, probably before you'd even seen your first camera; on 35 mm camera bodies and on monorails too. I also had the best Carl Zeiss Photomicrographic equipment money could buy. Both for transmission and reflected light. I tested the first Nomarski interference contrast equipment made by Zeiss (Oberkochen) in 1960 for Dr Möllring who was the head of that section at the time. I know a little about microscopes, both optical and electron. They were my tools for more than 50 years. So don't talk about them as if you were an authority - unless you are. I spent many months over a period of years at the Zeiss factory and had special components made for me. But all this is unimportant. You are still trying to slide away from the point, and that point is: if the image fits the film there is no advantage in using a bigger piece. We are not talking about magnification, only about image size. Magnification is irrelevant, it can be anything, film grain size is irrelevant it will be the same for any size of film, print magnification is also a red herring. It is the image on the film we are talking about. Only that. Nothing else. I repeat, you cannot improve an image by putting it in the middle of a piece of film as big as a Wimbledon tennis court. An image an inch wide, enlarged from 8 x 10 to any size you like, will be no better than an image an inch wide enlarged from 35 mm to the same size. To talk about better 'tonality' and the LF being 'sharper' than the other is ridiculous. The 35 mm image will be better for several reasons. But lets leave that out for the moment; it only gives you the opportunity to insert more 'red-herrings'. I habitually made close to the limit of the resolution of visible light - and beyond with UV - at magnifications in excess of 1200X. Did I put them on 8"x10", or 4"x5", or 6x7cm or on any of the other formats I had available? I could have quite easily. No! I put them on 35 mm. Why? Because they fit! To do anything else would have been really stupid - to be polite. But, I put images of small objects taken at magnifications between 5X and 30X or so on 4" x 5" Why? Because they fit! Don PS: Sorry about the second paragraph above, but I'm trying to make a point. 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: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 3:07 AM Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro > Your whole world seems to revolve around 35mm. > > Believe me folks were doing photography before the Exacta came out, even > before the Leica. Life size means 1:1 all right. But with 35mm almost no one > veiws 1:1 images there is some magnification involved if only 4x in 4x6 > prints. So the image on the print is 4x, not 1x as you seem to believe. > Zeiss made lumitar lenses for macro photography on 4x5 and larger formats. > They allowed images up to some outrages magnification. Lets see a 25mm > Lumitar with 400mm extension gives what? > > 1:1 is just the magic advertising speak for a close focusing lens. Ever see > a camera mounted on a microscope. Now that is close up photography! > > (More inline) > > Ciao, > Graywolf > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dr E D F Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 3:30 PM > Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro > > > > Graywolf, > > > > "Should be sharper looking and have a far smoother tonality" - indeed. Why > > should this be so?And how are you going to see this on an image an inch > > square in the middle of a piece of film of 80 square inches? Better to cut > > off 79 square inches, don't you think, so you can get it on your > microscope > > stage? Yes? But why not do this *first*, before exposure and not waste all > > that emulsion and those expensive chemicals? > > > > Your answers are not answers at all - just unsubstantiated opinion. And > > you've added a comment that is probably meant to be facetious - on a > thread > > that is actually quite serious. If you really believe you can get a better > > picture on a bigger piece of film, just because its bigger, then all you > > need is a little simple arithmetic. Forget the mathematics. Now please > just > > tell us why you think this 'should' be so. And leave out the sarcasm - its > > silly. > > > > I know the same sized image on 8 x 10 film made with a Rodenstock or > > Schneider lens will be *less sharp* than one from a good 50 or 100 mm > macro > > or even a standard lens with tubes, unless a rather expensive process lens > > is used on the view camera. It is unlikely to be better - unless we > compare > > a crappy system with a good one. It will show whatever 'tonality', smooth > or > > otherwise, the lens, film, lighting and processing will impart. And > remember > > you would need to keep that big piece of film flat as well. I found this > > impossible to achieve in my laboratory without a vacuum back. > > You know something that is not so. Said Lumitars above probably have higher > grade optics than anything but the best quality research microscope. Now if > you are comparing to the 50 year old Optar on my Crown graphic, which will > by the way focus 1:1 with not accessories what so ever just rack out the > bellows, you are probably right. Unfortunately you are operating from > obsolete information. See the thread where I and others have said modern > medium and large format optic are not inferior to current 35mm optics. That > is now a wife's tail based on the fact it used to be very difficult to grind > a large lens as accurrately as a small one. The latest Large format lenses > have every bit as high a resolution and contrast as top of the line 35mm > optics. > > > > > 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: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 9:13 PM > > Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro > > > > > > > Sorry, I don't understand the new math <grin>, my old math gives the > > answers > > > I wrote. > > > > > > Ciao, > > > Graywolf > > > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Dr E D F Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 1:28 PM > > > Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro > > > > > > > > > > Not true. > > > > > > > > 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: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 7:18 PM > > > > Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro > > > > > > > > > > > > > A 1:1 35mm macro shot enlarged 8x is a 8:1 photo. IOW, the object is > > 8x > > > > life > > > > > size. A 1:1 8x10 is still 1:1. Now a 1:8 35mm and a 1:1 8x10 would > be > > > > about > > > > > the same image but the 8x10 shot should be sharper looking, and have > a > > > far > > > > > smoother tonality. > > > > > > > > > > Ciao, > > > > > Graywolf > > > > > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Bill D. Casselberry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 11:47 AM > > > > > 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] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
