You have to qualify what you say below - a bit. One does not 'need' a larger format to get to 'real close-up photography'. It can be done more easily on 35 mm. I have achieved 10X and even 20X on occasion. But it wouldn't be possible to do it with a whole dime.
I'm interested in the lens you used. What was it? 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: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 1:41 AM Subject: Re: Re[2]: 35mm vs 8x10 macro > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bruce Dayton > Subject: Re[2]: 35mm vs 8x10 macro > > > > 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 >
