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] > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > >
