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 > 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 > http://pages.prodigy.net/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, 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > >
