Absolutely! And that's the only point I had. And its why I like photomacrography.
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: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Dr E D F Williams" <[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. > > 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] > >> --------------------------------------------------------- > >> >
