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
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
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
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
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
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
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
/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
Is it possible to do macro work with a 4x5? What lens and extension
would be needed?
Dan Scott
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
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
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
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
://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
- 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
]
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
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
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
- 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
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
- 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
- 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
22 matches
Mail list logo