Re: OT: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Dan Scott wrote: Is it possible to do macro work with a 4x5? What lens and extension would be needed? I've fooled around with mine quite a few times.. Using my old Pacemaker with a Dagor WA 111/6.8 or the Optar 135/4.7 that came with. You have to extend the bellows to twice the length to acheive 1:1. I'm pretty happy with my results, they're also lacking this weird blur/flare thing that I get whenever I reverse a lens on my Pentax. Focussing isn't very easy, I do most of it by raising and lowering the tripod head from the center coloum. The biggest problem I have is lack of movements. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: OT: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 01:09 PM, gfen wrote: On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Dan Scott wrote: Is it possible to do macro work with a 4x5? What lens and extension would be needed? I've fooled around with mine quite a few times.. Using my old Pacemaker with a Dagor WA 111/6.8 or the Optar 135/4.7 that came with. You have to extend the bellows to twice the length to acheive 1:1. I'm pretty happy with my results, they're also lacking this weird blur/flare thing that I get whenever I reverse a lens on my Pentax. Focussing isn't very easy, I do most of it by raising and lowering the tripod head from the center coloum. The biggest problem I have is lack of movements. Samples? (Email is fineI have ADSL until Directvinternet kicks the bucket later this month) Dan Scott
Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
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 --
Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
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 8x10, or 4x5, 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
Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
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 --
Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
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 -- --
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] -
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] -
OT: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
Is it possible to do macro work with a 4x5? What lens and extension would be needed? Dan Scott
Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
Now that is absolutely wrong Bill, The image size and amount of detail will be the same - but probably better in the case of 35 mm because the optics are usually better corrected. You can't make a 1:1 image of an object half an inch wide any better on a piece of film the size of a football field. We are talking about an object that will fit your film at 1:1 - in other words something that is less than an inch high. You could use a piece of film 5 mm square, for a small object, and get the same or better resolution as your giant camera. This is my whole point and no one seems to get it. They didn't last year and they still don't. I'll repeat it several ways. There is nothing to beat 35 mm when the object is small enough to fit on the film at 1:1 or greater for that matter. Because there will be nothing more on your big piece of Pan F than there will be on my little piece of Pan F. The object will be - say - 5 mm wide on my frame and 5 mm wide on your big sheet. Where are you going to get the extra 'info/data' as you put it? You could effectively tape a piece of 35 mm film into a holder and use it in your whacking great camera and get a worse result because the big lenses are not better, but are actually not as good as most of those used for 35mm work. It's the same with microscopy and working with the Questar telescope, or any telescope. The image that exits from the pupil of the instrument fits neatly onto 35 mm. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to be gained by using a bigger piece of film. Except a variety of troublesome problems. I haven't mentioned that the great big sheet of film in your 8 x 10 view camera is not going to be as flat as the roll in my 35 mm P30 either. Unless you use a vacuum back. Nor have we touched upon depth of field. You can, with movements, get some of that, but it might be very difficult to see what the hell is going on. I've tried this kind of thing before with a 5 x 4 Linhof, not a whacking great Kardan or other monorail, and found it fraught with difficulty. This is why I like taking macros. I can get the very best results possible with equipment that doesn't cost and arm and a leg. I know for a fact that a 35 mm camera with a good lens can't be beat for what I'm trying to do. This supposes of course that I can focus, compose, process and do all the dozen other things that are needed along the way. The same goes for photomicrography and taking pictures through various other optical systems where the image will fit the 35 mm format. Besides 35 mm film is superior in a number of ways to anything bigger (not glass plates) but that can be left for the moment. So - where the final image will fit on the film, there is nothing to be gained by using a larger format. 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: Bill D. Casselberry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 6:47 PM 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] -
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] -
Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
Dr E D F Williams wrote: Now that is absolutely wrong Bill, You can't make a 1:1 image of an object half an inch wide any better on a piece of film the size of a football field. We are talking about an object that will fit your film at 1:1 - in other words something that is less than an inch high. You could use a piece of film 5 mm square, for a small object, and get the same or better resolution as your giant camera. in the immortal words of Rosanne Rosannadanna ... OK - never mind !8^) Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
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] -
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. 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] -
Re: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
- Original Message - From: Dan Scott Subject: OT: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro Is it possible to do macro work with a 4x5? What lens and extension would be needed? Short focal length lenses in the 65mm to 90mm range will work with most any 4x5. William Robb
Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
See below... Dr E D F Williams wrote: Now that is absolutely wrong Bill, The image size and amount of detail will be the same - but probably better in the case of 35 mm because the optics are usually better corrected. You can't make a 1:1 image of an object half an inch wide any better on a piece of film the size of a football field. We are talking about an object that will fit your film at 1:1 - in other words something that is less than an inch high. You could use a piece of film 5 mm square, for a small object, and get the same or better resolution as your giant camera. This is my whole point and no one seems to get it. They didn't last year and they still don't. I'll repeat it several ways. There is nothing to beat 35 mm when the object is small enough to fit on the film at 1:1 or greater for that matter. Because there will be nothing more on your big piece of Pan F than there will be on my little piece of Pan F. The object will be - say - 5 mm wide on my frame and 5 mm wide on your big sheet. Where are you going to get the extra 'info/data' as you put it? You could effectively tape a piece of 35 mm film into a holder and use it in your whacking great camera and get a worse result because the big lenses are not better, but are actually not as good as most of those used for 35mm work. It's the same with microscopy and working with the Questar telescope, or any telescope. The image that exits from the pupil of the instrument fits neatly onto 35 mm. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to be gained by using a bigger piece of film. Except a variety of troublesome problems. I haven't mentioned that the great big sheet of film in your 8 x 10 view camera is not going to be as flat as the roll in my 35 mm P30 either. Unless you use a vacuum back. Nor have we touched upon depth of field. You can, with movements, get some of that, but it might be very difficult to see what the hell is going on. I've tried this kind of thing before with a 5 x 4 Linhof, not a whacking great Kardan or other monorail, and found it fraught with difficulty. This is why I like taking macros. I can get the very best results possible with equipment that doesn't cost and arm and a leg. I know for a fact that a 35 mm camera with a good lens can't be beat for what I'm trying to do. This supposes of course that I can focus, compose, process and do all the dozen other things that are needed along the way. The same goes for photomicrography and taking pictures through various other optical systems where the image will fit the 35 mm format. Besides 35 mm film is superior in a number of ways to anything bigger (not glass plates) but that can be left for the moment. So - where the final image will fit on the film, there is nothing to be gained by using a larger format. I know that, you know that, and I'm surprised so few folks seem to believe it! The single thing gained is not having to enlarge the film image as much if at all, for viewing. You usually do on 35mm, you essentially don't on LF stuff. If you took a 35mm film image and enlarged it exactly 3 times, and did the same thing with 4x5, 5x7, whatever, the resolution and image quality on the print would almost match, with the 35 having a very, very slight edge. At 3X, probably not that much... You'll never get most of the MFers and LFers to admit that... Those guys who wax elequent about the lack of grain and the 'information' in the print, compared to 35mm prints, invariably fail to mention that their negative was hardly blown up at all! Do that and it's still apples and oranges! That's why I mostly get out the magnifying glass when I get film developed. I'd _much_ rather look at a color negative or positive thru a 10X flat field glass than any print you can make. It's there I se the sharpness and the shadow detail that's almost certainly missing from all of my prints. I get the most pleasure out of what the negative shows. It proves my equipment is as capable as I thought it was... I know what my camera, and especially my 35mm lenses can do, but the prints never show it. I find 35mm just fine. It would be nice if I could get a decent, accurate print of what I shoot, that compares with what I see thru my loupe! keith whaley 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: Bill D. Casselberry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 6:47 PM 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
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 --
Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
I knew how to print before you were born, Wm. ~ Most probably. I've gone thru 3 BW darkroom setups over the years, at as many addresses. That was back when I could devote all my time to photograpy. Now, I don't have the time, nor the inclination (because of the lack of time!) Almost as exasperating as not being able to get in print what I see in the negative(s). keith whaley William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro Those guys who wax elequent about the lack of grain and the 'information' in the print, compared to 35mm prints, invariably fail to mention that their negative was hardly blown up at all! Thats cause we find it so painfully obvious that we don't feel the need to. = snipped more of the same inanities... =
Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
- Original Message - From: Keith Whaley Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro I knew how to print before you were born, Wm. ~ Most probably. I've gone thru 3 BW darkroom setups over the years, at as many addresses. That was back when I could devote all my time to photograpy. Now, I don't have the time, nor the inclination (because of the lack of time!) Almost as exasperating as not being able to get in print what I see in the negative(s). WOW!! Your THAT old? Glad to see most of the inanities you snipped were your own. William Robb William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro Those guys who wax elequent about the lack of grain and the 'information' in the print, compared to 35mm prints, invariably fail to mention that their negative was hardly blown up at all! Thats cause we find it so painfully obvious that we don't feel the need to. = snipped more of the same inanities... =
Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
In a reply to this: Those guys who wax elequent about the lack of grain and the 'information' in the print, compared to 35mm prints, invariably fail to mention that their negative was hardly blown up at all! William Robb wrote: Thats cause we find it so painfully obvious that we don't feel the need to. ROFLOL
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
Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
- Original Message - From: T Rittenhouse Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro 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! Reminds me of my film tests. Them Leitz microscope lenses ROCK!! William Robb
