I'm not missing the point, but I find it incongruous. I realize you're talking about using the same film area, which would yield approximaely the same results. But say I'm shooting a Snowdrop flower, which I have done. It's about the size of a dime, smaller than a 35mm frame. If I shoot it with my 35mm and 1:1 macro, I can frame it nicely and get good results. If I shoot it in 6x7, I would use extension tubes and a reversed lens, go for more magnification perhaps 4X or so, fill the frame with it, and probably end up with a better image. Even when shooting something smaller than a 35mm frame, I try to take advantage of the larger negative.
Dr E D F Williams wrote: > > But you too are missing the point. It is that the film is the same, whether > it be 35mm or a piece the size of you bedroom wall. The emulsions may differ > a bit of course. So when the image is of a size that fits 35 mm there is no > point in using a bigger piece for Heavens sake! > > 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: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 3:47 PM > Subject: Re: An experiment in tonality > > > I have pictures of the same scene in 35mm and 6x7, taken with > > approximately the same angle of view: 28mm for 35, 55mm for 6x7. But if > > I put my 6x7 negative in the 35mm film holder, I will no longer have a > > picture of the same scene. I'll have a much tighter crop. If, on the > > other hand, I print the same scene twice on the same size paper, once > > with the 35mm neg and once with the 6x7 neg in my 6x7 film holder, the > > 6x7 print will have much less grain and better apparent sharpness. Been > > there, done that. But it's kind of obvious I would think. > > Paul > > > > Dr E D F Williams wrote: > > > > > > 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 > >
