On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Dan Scott wrote:
Is it possible to do macro work with a 4x5? What lens and extension
would be needed?
I've fooled around with mine quite a few times.. Using my old Pacemaker
with a Dagor WA 111/6.8 or the Optar 135/4.7 that came with. You have to
extend the bellows to twice
On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 01:09 PM, gfen wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Dan Scott wrote:
Is it possible to do macro work with a 4x5? What lens and extension
would be needed?
I've fooled around with mine quite a few times.. Using my old Pacemaker
with a Dagor WA 111/6.8 or the Optar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 1:07 AM
Subject: Re[2]: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
That makes sense to me. Basically it is impossible to capture more
detail than exists. So if the actual subject is smaller than your
film size, it will not be able to capture any more
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
a point.
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: T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 3:07 AM
Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
Your
8x10 macro
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton
Subject: Re[2]: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
That makes sense to me. Basically it is impossible to capture
more
detail than exists. So if the actual subject is smaller than
your
film size, it will not be able to capture any more
- Original Message -
From: Dr E D F Williams
Subject: Re: Re[2]: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
You have to qualify what you say below - a bit. One does not
'need' a larger
format to get to 'real close-up photography'. It can be done
more easily on
35 mm. I have achieved 10X and even 20X
William;
I'm trying to learn studio lighting for extreme magnifications. What kind
of lighting did you use? Did you use a TTL meter or did you meter with a
hand-held? If you used an external meter, how did you calculate exposure?
Thanks in advance.
Christian Skofteland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Christian Skofteland
Subject: Re: Re[2]: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
William;
I'm trying to learn studio lighting for extreme
magnifications. What kind
of lighting did you use? Did you use a TTL meter or did you
meter with a
hand-held? If you used an external
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
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
Dr E D F Williams wrote:
Bob,
I think you answered too quickly without fully getting the point. I didn't
say, or imply, that because this matter had been discussed before it should
not be again. You jumped to that conclusion. Furthermore, after re-reading
what I wrote, I think its
/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: Bill D. Casselberry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
Dr E D F Williams wrote:
Bob,
I think you answered too quickly without fully getting the point. I
didn't
say
Is it possible to do macro work with a 4x5? What lens and extension
would be needed?
Dan Scott
14, 2002 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
Dr E D F Williams wrote:
Bob,
I think you answered too quickly without fully getting the point. I
didn't
say, or imply, that because this matter had been discussed before it
should
not be again. You jumped to that conclusion
Not true.
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: T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
Dr E D F Williams wrote:
Now that is absolutely wrong Bill,
You can't make a 1:1 image of an object half an inch wide any
better on a piece of film the size of a football field. We are
talking about an object that will fit your film at 1:1 - in
other words something that is less than an
: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
A 1:1 35mm macro shot enlarged 8x is a 8:1 photo. IOW, the object is 8x
life
size. A 1:1 8x10 is still 1:1. Now a 1:8 35mm and a 1:1 8x10 would be
about
the same image but the 8x10 shot should be sharper looking, and have a
far
smoother tonality.
Ciao,
Graywolf
://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: March 30, 2002
- Original Message -
From: T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
Sorry, I don't understand the new
- Original Message -
From: Dan Scott
Subject: OT: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
Is it possible to do macro work with a 4x5? What lens and
extension
would be needed?
Short focal length lenses in the 65mm to 90mm range will work
with most any 4x5.
William Robb
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
Dr E D F Williams wrote:
Bob,
I think you answered too quickly without fully getting the point. I
didn't
say, or imply, that because this matter had been discussed before it
should
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
as exasperating as not being able to get in print what I see in
the negative(s).
keith whaley
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Keith Whaley
Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
Those guys who wax elequent about the lack of grain and the
'information' in the print, compared
Web Site and Photo Gallery
DEDFW Updated: March 30, 2002
DEDFW - Original Message -
DEDFW From: Bill D. Casselberry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DEDFW To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DEDFW Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 6:47 PM
DEDFW Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
Dr E D F Williams wrote:
Bob,
I
- Original Message -
From: Keith Whaley
Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
I knew how to print before you were born, Wm. ~ Most
probably.
I've gone thru 3 BW darkroom setups over the years, at as
many
addresses. That was back when I could devote all my time to
photograpy.
Now, I
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton
Subject: Re[2]: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
That makes sense to me. Basically it is impossible to capture
more
detail than exists. So if the actual subject is smaller than
your
film size, it will not be able to capture any more.
Until we get past
That makes sense to me. Basically it is impossible to capture
more detail than exists. So if the actual subject is smaller than
your film size, it will not be able to capture any more.
Until we get past macro, into real close up photography.
One of my PUG subjects was an American dime, shot
- Original Message -
From: Andre Langevin
Subject: Re: Re[2]: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
I'd like to understand something.
We are in front of 2 settings:
(1) a reversed lens on a bellows to photograph an 18mm dime at
a 2X
magnification on 35mm film (it fills the width of the film)
(2
In a reply to this:
Those guys who wax elequent about the lack of grain and the
'information' in the print, compared to 35mm prints,
invariably fail
to mention that their negative was hardly blown up at all!
William Robb wrote:
Thats cause we find it so painfully obvious that we
- Original Message -
From: T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
Sorry, I don't understand the new math grin, my old math gives the
answers
I wrote.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http
- Original Message -
From: T Rittenhouse
Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro
1:1 is just the magic advertising speak for a close focusing
lens. Ever see
a camera mounted on a microscope. Now that is close up
photography!
Reminds me of my film tests.
Them Leitz microscope lenses ROCK
31 matches
Mail list logo
