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 when the the object is smaller than 1.5 X 1 inch, 35mm is best and easiest. Anything larger and medium or large format would be better. Agreed? Bruce Saturday, December 14, 2002, 10:26:54 AM, you wrote: DEDFW> Now that is absolutely wrong Bill, DEDFW> The image size and amount of detail will be the same - but probably better DEDFW> in the case of 35 mm because the optics are usually better corrected. You DEDFW> can't make a 1:1 image of an object half an inch wide any better on a piece DEDFW> of film the size of a football field. We are talking about an object that DEDFW> will fit your film at 1:1 - in other words something that is less than an DEDFW> inch high. You could use a piece of film 5 mm square, for a small object, DEDFW> and get the same or better resolution as your giant camera. DEDFW> This is my whole point and no one seems to get it. They didn't last year and DEDFW> they still don't. I'll repeat it several ways. There is nothing to beat 35 DEDFW> mm when the object is small enough to fit on the film at 1:1 or greater for DEDFW> that matter. Because there will be nothing more on your big piece of Pan F DEDFW> than there will be on my little piece of Pan F. The object will be - say - 5 DEDFW> mm wide on my frame and 5 mm wide on your big sheet. Where are you going DEDFW> to get the extra 'info/data' as you put it? You could effectively tape a DEDFW> piece of 35 mm film into a holder and use it in your whacking great camera DEDFW> and get a worse result because the big lenses are not better, but are DEDFW> actually not as good as most of those used for 35mm work. It's the same with DEDFW> microscopy and working with the Questar telescope, or any telescope. The DEDFW> image that exits from the pupil of the instrument fits neatly onto 35 mm. DEDFW> There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to be gained by using a bigger piece DEDFW> of film. Except a variety of troublesome problems. DEDFW> I haven't mentioned that the great big sheet of film in your 8 x 10 view DEDFW> camera is not going to be as flat as the roll in my 35 mm P30 either. Unless DEDFW> you use a vacuum back. Nor have we touched upon depth of field. You can, DEDFW> with movements, get some of that, but it might be very difficult to see what DEDFW> the hell is going on. I've tried this kind of thing before with a 5 x 4 DEDFW> Linhof, not a whacking great Kardan or other monorail, and found it fraught DEDFW> with difficulty. DEDFW> This is why I like taking macros. I can get the very best results possible DEDFW> with equipment that DEDFW> doesn't cost and arm and a leg. I know for a fact that a 35 mm camera with DEDFW> a good lens can't be beat for what I'm trying to do. This supposes of course DEDFW> that I can focus, compose, process and do all the dozen other things that DEDFW> are needed along the way. The same goes for photomicrography and taking DEDFW> pictures through various other optical systems where the image will fit the DEDFW> 35 mm format. Besides 35 mm film is superior in a number of ways to anything DEDFW> bigger (not glass plates) but that can be left for the moment. DEDFW> So - where the final image will fit on the film, there is nothing to be DEDFW> gained by using a larger format. DEDFW> Don DEDFW> Dr E D F Williams DEDFW> http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams DEDFW> Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery DEDFW> Updated: March 30, 2002 DEDFW> ----- Original Message ----- DEDFW> From: "Bill D. Casselberry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> DEDFW> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> DEDFW> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 6:47 PM DEDFW> 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 DEDFW> didn't >> > say, or imply, that because this matter had been discussed before it DEDFW> should >> > not be again. You jumped to that conclusion. Furthermore, after DEDFW> 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 DEDFW> nothing >> > whatsoever to do with the ratios of the sides of a frame as you say - DEDFW> 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] >> --------------------------------------------------------- >>
