Not all macro photos are artistic renditions of flowers and bugs. In my distant past I worked with scientists in the back-rooms of a museum, to photograph biological specimens, fossils and more. Not only did we include a scale in the frame, but we also used a range of fixed magnification (or reduction) ratios, to enable easier batch printing later in the darkroom. Had we framed each shot for best composition on an ad hoc basis, then each and every print would have needed individual scaling under the enlarger.
Way back in my ancient past I briefly worked a humungous microfilm camera, a 35mm (unperforated rolls) Fuji. Here too, only a few specific reduction ratios were ever used, and the camera was programmed to go straight to those reductions, skipping over the infinite range of settings between each preset ratio. regards, Anthony Farr ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I never could understand this 1:1, 3:1, 4:1 talk. Unless you are doing > scientific work or have a real good reason to know your magnification, who cares. > It's all about the image you're seeing through the viewfinder. If you're close > enough to get the image you want, it's all you need.... I think some of us > worry too much about the specifications of a lens rather than ask the questions: > does it do what I need it to do to get the images I want. I have a 100mm macro > that gives me 1:1. Do I use 1:1 very often? No. I have another 100mm macro > that gives me 1:2. It's half the size, half the weight and performs beautifully > 99 per cent of the time. If I need to get closer I'll stick on an extension > tube. > Just my two cents > Vic > >
