- 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-h
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: 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
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 1:41 AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: 35mm vs 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 exis
OTECTED]>
To: "Dr E D F Williams" <[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
>
- 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 fill
> 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 o
- 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
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.
But that also means that the bigger the subject is, the more detail
that can be captured by bigger film. So wh
9 matches
Mail list logo