So. I'm shooting a flower that is four millimetres high by three wide. At 4x I still end up with an image that fits my 35 mm film. Are you going to tell the same sized image on 6x7 will be better? How? This is my whole point - it cannot be. Regardless of magnification, which is a red-herring, if the image fits on the film there is no point in using a bigger piece. For Heaven's sake! Why all the unsubtle manoeuvring around a simple statement -> 'where the image fits on 35 mm there is no point in using a bigger piece of film'? Magnify all you like 50X - 1000X with a microscope if you want. *If* the final image that emerges from the exit pupil fits on 35 mm - that's all you need.
Bigger can give you nothing more than trouble. What I say applies to 6 x 7, 4 x 5 or 10 x 8 or any size. If the image, that you have decided upon for you picture, fits on the 10 x 8 there is no point in using an Agfa plate a metre square - yes they do exist, I've used them. Now don't start telling me that you can use higher magnification to fill the metre square, that's not the point. You've already done all that, decided on magnification and the rest. And I'm as close to swearing as I'll ever be and not do it. I've already been called senile and told that I talk rubbish. By people who simply don't, or won't because they think they might lose face, understand. 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 6:18 PM Subject: Re: An experiment in tonality > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Paul Stenquist > Subject: Re: An experiment in tonality > > > > I'm not missing the point, but I find it incongruous. I > realize you're > > talking about using the same film area, which would yield > approximaely > > the same results. But say I'm shooting a Snowdrop flower, > which I have > > done. It's about the size of a dime, smaller than a 35mm > frame. If I > > shoot it with my 35mm and 1:1 macro, I can frame it nicely and > get good > > results. If I shoot it in 6x7, I would use extension tubes and > a > > reversed lens, go for more magnification perhaps 4X or so, > fill the > > frame with it, and probably end up with a better image. Even > when > > shooting something smaller than a 35mm frame, I try to take > advantage of > > the larger negative. > > This is the point that is being <deliberately I think> missed. > The advantage of medium format is that there is more film. > More film means less magnification needed to get to the final > image. > If you use that advantage to your benefit, then your pictures > will be better in some fairly limited respects, such as > granularity, tonality and resolution. > > William Robb >
