Absolutely and precisely P�l! NO ONE! Absolutely no one, would do such a stupid thing. Except the man who keeps arguing around the point; avoiding the issue which is - if the image fits the small film there is no point in using a bigger piece! Now has everyone got it! I'll bet not.
I said, more or less, in the first post: There is one application in which 35 mm excels. That is for macro work, where the final image is equal to, or smaller than, the 1" x 1.5" of the 35mm film. That's all I said. Then, without thinking, a certain person started to talk rubbish and still continues to do so. Sliding this way and that, even talking about aerial images, and other irrelevancies in order to keep sounding clever. Avoiding, always, the original point which is irrefutable. He said, amongst other things, that 1 square inch of image would be sharper in the middle of a piece of 8 x 10 than on 35 mm. Can you believe that? And it would have better 'tonality' into the bargain. Take a picture of the head of a pin at 10X or even 20X. It will fit nicely on 35 mm. For this purpose, the imaging of a pin-head, there nothing is better than 35 mm - as film goes. And this is true for more reasons than one, by the way. I do hope this is the end of the nonsense. But I'll bet it isn't. Don 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: "P�l Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 3:42 PM Subject: Re: An experiment in tonality > You seem to insist on comparing a 35mm image with a cropped larger format image. Who does this in real life? The whole point of larger format is to take advantage of that larger area. In that way you get better tonality and finer grain. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dr E D F Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 1:15 PM > Subject: An experiment in tonality > > > > I am suddenly tempted towards ribaldry - but will contain myself. > > > > Many of you will have pictures you've taken on both 35 mm, and a larger > > format, of the same scene. I know I have. Amongst my slides I have shots of > > mountain scenes taken with a Bronica SQ-A and a Pentax ME Super taken at the > > same time on the same film stock - Kodacolor. Perhaps some of you, or even > > one person could do an experiment? > > > > Find a pair of negatives of the same subject or scene. Focus your enlarger > > and make a print of the 35 mm negative. Then put the bigger negative in the > > 35 mm holder. Focus and make another print without moving the enlarger > > column up or down. Compare the two. Does the larger format show less grain? > > Is it sharper? Is the 'tonality' better. Unless there is a big discrepancy > > between the two images due to differences in the quality of the two lenses, > > the processing, or other taking conditions, they should be similar. I know > > mine are. > > > > A good achromatic loupe would be enough to come to a conclusion - a print is > > not really needed. That is merely labouring a point I've been trying to make > > for days. Is there less grain on your 6 x 6 at say 5-10X magnification than > > on the 35 mm? There certainly is not on mine. Are the edges of objects less > > sharp in one than the other? Not that I can see. I've just done this myself. > > Even though the outcome was a foregone conclusion - I was being objective. > > But I used a microscope, not a loupe. > > > > What about tonality? I like tonality! I don't know what it is. But I'm ready > > to guess. Is the word meant to describe the range of tones, grey levels, or > > colours, that are discernable on a slide, negative, or print, by the human > > eye? If so whose eye? Or is it the range of grey levels or colours > > measurable only with a densitometer or spectrophotometer in a laboratory? Is > > it something only certain people can see? Is it that barely discernable gut > > feeling of 'betterness' due entirely to the fact that one piece of film is > > bigger than the other? Is it magical? Does it involve an oracle? Maybe Harry > > Potter can help us? > > > > When someone say's 'trust me' - never do. When they say 'believe me' - > > don't. Say 'prove it' instead. Again I am tempted, but will restrain the > > impulse. > > > > Don > > > > Dr E D F Williams > > > > http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams > > Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery > > Updated: March 30, 2002 > > > > > > >
