Perhaps 645 (Pentax?) and a 75mm (or less) lens at f22, neg scanned in a flatbed scanner?
Anyway this discussion shows, that all the talk about wich format or media is the best really has very little to do with the quality of the photographs, and a lot more with personal preferences, convenience and economy, doesn't it? Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 19. april 2004 08:24 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: Name that capture? OK, I'll throw another hint. You cant get grainless scans this big with 35mm film in black and white, let alone color. It is not 35mm film. JCO ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Andre Langevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 2:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Name that capture? >Not a pretty shot but the image quality is up there: >http://jcoconnell.com/temp/macro01s.jpg > >Film or digital?, lens? Cost of equipment? >Anyone care to guess? > >JCO This could be from one of your setting with an enlarging lens (reversed?) on a 35mm film camera. One of the best way to do macro. If this is the case, the cost of an old enlarging lens should be under $40. Andre
