> But you too are missing the point. It is that the film is the same, whether > it be 35mm or a piece the size of you bedroom wall. The emulsions may differ > a bit of course. So when the image is of a size that fits 35 mm there is no > point in using a bigger piece for Heavens sake!
Don, Without meaning any offense, your argument may seem somewhat specious to non-scientific photographers. What you are assuming is that the end result that is wanted is a 1:1 magnification _on film_. So you're comparing "fitting" a small image on a piece of 35mm film or "floating" an on-film image of the exact same size in the middle of a 4x5 sheet. Of course this just isn't how pictorial photographers think. We never have any reason to deal with exact on-film magnification ratios--the only reason we speak of it at all is to compare the potential magnification of different lenses...and then, only because that's how the manufacturers choose to label the lenses in the first place. Even among macro photographers, I doubt 1 in 100 could tell you the exact magnification ratio they used for any particular pictorial shot. So the source of your difficulty in communicating may be that you're presuming an end goal that would simply never occur to most photographers. --Mike [ NOTE: I don't have time to read every PDML digest and may not see every message posted. If you have a message or response you'd like me to see, please copy my personal e-mail address. Thanks! ]
