Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro

[Andre Langevin]

I should add that we want a print depicting the 1" object as a 10" image.

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.

So, getting a larger image (on a plate) of the same 1" object (using the proper optics) would not bring any advantage?

Those matters are kind of hard to figure out for most of us...

André

So what? We are talking about final images that are no larger than the 35 mm
frame.

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: "Andre Langevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro

 Am I wrong or we should talk about lenses used and way they are used?

 I put a reversed Componon on a bellows and photograph a dime at
 double life size.  On the monorail, I focus the same setting so that
 the dime is 10 times life size.  Componon being a fine performer at
 both 1:2 and 1:10.  So which negative will give me more detail from
 the same lens?

 Andre
 --

--