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 perfectly clear that I'm talking about one
> instance where 35 mm is superior to larger formats in sharpness and
> everything else. The ratios I quote are reproduction ratios and have nothing
> whatsoever to do with the ratios of the sides of a frame as you say - but
> The point I was replying to - missing here - is that a larger format
> does not mean better quality - in one particular case at least. A
> picture taken at 1:1 on 35 mm will usually be superior in sharpness
> and quality to one taken on 10 x 8 at 1:1 *because the 35 mm lenses are
> invariably better corrected* than those for larger formats.
Ummm - not so sure, myself. Seems to me that a 1:1 done on
an 8x10 monorail w/ the necessary extension would hold its
own quite nicely against an 8x enlargment from even an ex-
cellent 35mm macro set-up. Upon enlargment the compressed
"info/data" on the 35mm film couldn't match the definition
and detail captured directly onto the larger film.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------
Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast
http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------
