Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro

[Andre Langevin]

I should add that we want a print depicting the 1" object as a 10" image.

An image an inch wide, enlarged
from 8 x 10 to any size you like, will be no better than an image an inch
wide enlarged from 35 mm to the same size.

So, getting a larger image (on a plate) of the same 1" object (using the proper optics) would not bring any advantage?

Those matters are kind of hard to figure out for most of us...

Andr�

So what? We are talking about final images that are no larger than the 35 mm
frame.

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: "Andre Langevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro

 Am I wrong or we should talk about lenses used and way they are used?

 I put a reversed Componon on a bellows and photograph a dime at
 double life size.  On the monorail, I focus the same setting so that
 the dime is 10 times life size.  Componon being a fine performer at
 both 1:2 and 1:10.  So which negative will give me more detail from
 the same lens?

 Andre
 --

--