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