>I was looking through some of my recent tiger lilly photos, trying
>to decide which ones to get enlarged, and how large, when I realized
>what photo of a lilly I want:
>
>I want a wall-sized (meters on a side -- 3mx4m or larger) macro shot
>staring down into the center of an orange tiger lilly with enough depth
>of field that the (stamens?) projecting into the foreground are sharp,
>large enough that when you stand in front of it, you'll feel as though
>you're about to fall in. _Ideally_ I'd like to take the photo myself,
>but that's not as important as _having_ it.
>
>Now the question is: how would I go about getting this? That's a
>lot of DOF to ask for at that magnification (and then there's the
>question of whether I could get it sharp enough in 35mm for that
>enlargement). How feasible would this shot be in MF? LF?
>
>Somehow I think it's going to be a long time before I have that
>photo. OTOH, it's more likely to happen than the painting that's
>been stuck in my head for twenty years that I can't paint. (Sometimes
>the muse is very cruel.)
>
> -- Glenn, writing a new
> jig today.
Hey Glenn,
It's much easier to paint big than small. Time to borrow or rent an opaque
or slide projector and get yourself a couple of nice paint brushes (or, if
you want to go low tech, draw a grid on your print and use a $5 chalkline
to scale up the grid on your wall). Even though your original image may not
be sharp enough to blow up as large as you wish, when you draw/trace and
then paint the edges, you can make them as sharp as you like.
Dan Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
