Your whole world seems to revolve around 35mm. Believe me folks were doing photography before the Exacta came out, even before the Leica. Life size means 1:1 all right. But with 35mm almost no one veiws 1:1 images there is some magnification involved if only 4x in 4x6 prints. So the image on the print is 4x, not 1x as you seem to believe. Zeiss made lumitar lenses for macro photography on 4x5 and larger formats. They allowed images up to some outrages magnification. Lets see a 25mm Lumitar with 400mm extension gives what?
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! (More inline) 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 3:30 PM Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro > 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. You know something that is not so. Said Lumitars above probably have higher grade optics than anything but the best quality research microscope. Now if you are comparing to the 50 year old Optar on my Crown graphic, which will by the way focus 1:1 with not accessories what so ever just rack out the bellows, you are probably right. Unfortunately you are operating from obsolete information. See the thread where I and others have said modern medium and large format optic are not inferior to current 35mm optics. That is now a wife's tail based on the fact it used to be very difficult to grind a large lens as accurrately as a small one. The latest Large format lenses have every bit as high a resolution and contrast as top of the line 35mm optics. > > 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] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
