[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 1:07 AM
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
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
- Original Message -
From: Dr E D F Williams
Subject: Re: Re[2]: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
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
William;
I'm trying to learn studio lighting for extreme magnifications. What kind
of lighting did you use? Did you use a TTL meter or did you meter with a
hand-held? If you used an external meter, how did you calculate exposure?
Thanks in advance.
Christian Skofteland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Christian Skofteland
Subject: Re: Re[2]: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
William;
I'm trying to learn studio lighting for extreme
magnifications. What kind
of lighting did you use? Did you use a TTL meter or did you
meter with a
hand-held? If you used an external
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.
But that also means that the bigger the subject is, the more detail
that can be captured by bigger film. So
- 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
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
- Original Message -
From: Andre Langevin
Subject: Re: Re[2]: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
I'd like to understand something.
We are in front of 2 settings:
(1) a reversed lens on a bellows to photograph an 18mm dime at
a 2X
magnification on 35mm film (it fills the width of the film)
(2
9 matches
Mail list logo
