dynachrome, I'm still shooting 135 KM, don't need or even like Velveeta. EVS and EB don't come close. E100G doesn't come closer either, but a 2x3 E100G shot has to be enlarged less than half as much as a 135 KM shot to get the same print size and E100G is better than half as good as KM. For me, at least, that ends the discussion.
I examine my shots with a good 8x magnifier or a stereo microscope. I don't need to scan to see what they contain. My 35 mm KM shots don't enlarge well to 8x10. Experienced guests tell me that I'm too critical of my own work; they see strong images where I see unacceptable fuzziness. From a couple of feet they look fine, from 10" they don't pass muster (according to me). Projected they look very good.
Just about anything will print well at small sizes, even really crappy digital.
35 mm, usually 105/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS on an FM2n. Flash illumination by a pair of Minolta Electroflash 20s on a Spiratone Macrodapter. I shoot at what I've decided are too small apertures, have to put ND gels on the flashes. I shoot the 105 with flash hand-held. Very occasionally a 40/4.5 Luminar on Minolta Compact Bellows on the FM2n (lots of adapters at both ends of the bellows), always from tripod with 2-axis rail.
2x3, Pacemaker Speed Graphic with 100/6.3 Neupolar or 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar, occasionally with a longer process lens, e.g., 180/9 Apo Saphir. Depending on the situation, available darkness, a single handheld Vivitar 283 with VP-1, or a pair of 283s with VP-1s on a bracket I made. Am just testing another smaller Jones macro bracket (very rare) that holds a pair of small flashes with ND gels. Always from tripod, usually with 2-axis rail.
I aim for 8x10 prints. Starting from a 2x3 tranny, this means that I can't shoot at apertures smaller than f/16 (set, effective is usually considerably smaller).
Macro Lens Or Extension Tubes For Pentax
I think you answered some of my questions. I still have some KM left and I agree that it is a great film. When it was available and when it could be processed I also shot 120 Kodachrome. I shot 35mm Ektachrome last week and when it comes back from the lab I would like to have an 8X10 made from one of them and send it to you. I started shooting more slide film at about the time that Type R materials were being phased out. I actually preferred the look of Type R prints to that of scanned and digitally printed slides. Even with contrast masks it was not possible to control contrast as well as you can with scanning and digital printing. The first print order I got from The Slideprinter after they had switched over to scanning and digital printing was a surprise. The slides I has sent were KM. I expected to see the KM grain pattern but instead, when I looked at the 8X10 and 11X14 prints with a magnifier, I saw the pattern of the digital printer. From even a little distance the prints looked very good and I would say that shadow detail was better than what I had seen with Type R prints. The problem with this arrangement for me is that if you look very closely at a print (with a magnifier) and if the print was made digitally the same pattern will appear whether you used 35mm film, 120 film or even 4X5.
Overall quality, from even a small distance, can be better with the larger formats but the resolution of the scan and the dpi output of the printer will make important differences. For making 8X10 prints with minimal cropping on the 8" side there isn't much of an advantage in using 6X9 over 6X7. The more important advantages you would have would be camera back amd lens board movements.
Now I'm curious about how much KM I actually have in the freezer. I have never liked Velvia (50) for people and it will never have the exact same overall look as KM but where sharpness and fine grain are concerned, nice work can be done with that film too.
Thanks for the kind offer of a sample print. I have no idea whether the labs I use for color prints do as well as possible. I have a print on my desk of an E100G shot (not closeup) taken with a Perkeo II that has an 80/3.5 Color Skopar. The tranny's soft everywhere -- possibly the lens isn't all that sharp at, IIRC, f/11, possibly I'm not steady enough -- but the print is no softer. The lab that made it will print on glossy paper if asked, for sharpness that's a better surface and any of the various mattes. Thing is, at 8-12x, every image I've ever put on film, with the possible exception of some copy stand shots at relatively large apertures, is soft. This is partly, as I've said, because I often shoot stopped down too far, but happens even when I don't.
I prefer evaluating original transparencies and negatives to evaluating scans and prints from scans for the reasons you brought forward. I'm not anti-digital like many here, but when working with film going to digital in order to evaluate what one has seems, um, incorrect. Stupid,even.
Funny you should mention movements. Practically speaking, my little Graphics' only useful movement is front rise, and in closeup work moving the camera is better. I don't miss movements much when working closeup, I can usually make the film plane parallel to the intended plane of best focus. Landscapes are another matter entirely.
IMO Velveeta is sharp enough, but the colors are false. I remember shots of a Sicydium with brilliant blue in its dorsal fins. They came out correctly on KM, velvety black on Velveeta. For me, that was the end of RVP.
My other objection to Velveeta, if it really is an ISO 50 film, is that it is too fast. KM is at least a stop faster than I really need. The people who love fast films don't try to do close up work out-of-doors with flash illumination. With ISO 100 film it takes quite a fast shutter speed to reduce ambient enough in the worst situations; my 35 mm SLRs' 1/250 synch speed can't quite do it, another reason for using a Copal #1 (1/400) or SynchroCompur #1 (1/500) with my macro lenses on the Graphic. I mourned seriously when KM was discontinued and I realised I'd have to use an ISO 100 E6 emulsion in my Nikons.
I agree with you that 6x7 and 6x9 aren't that different. But my guru, such as he is, A. A. Blaker made the point in Field Photography that the returns to moving up in format without at least doubling both dimensions of the frame aren't worth the trouble. 24x36 doubled is 48x72, so a long 6x7 just meets Blaker's criterion, but 6x9 beats it. And that's why I went 6x9. I don't regret it, but many people are happy with 6x7.
I don't like the 135mm for the 6x7. It's macro ratio is pretty awful. You'll want tubes for that.
The 120mm for 645 is a good lens and goes to 1:1. I've never wanted to get closer than that.
I have a 100mm Macro 1:2 for 35mm, which at first I thought was pretty good, but after using the 120mm it just doens't cut it
I just read this threat and I just got a 135mm macro for my 67 II and am very disappointed with the fact that it has a bad ratio to it. At work (dentistry) I use a Canon 10D with a 100mm macro with a ring light and I can get down to 3 teeth in photographing without any other help. Why couldn't they do this with the 67. Can you shoot small flower with the extension tubes. I understand that the larger the film size the harder it is to get 1:1 since 1:1 on 35mm is much smaller a area than a 1:1 on 4x5.
Capturing an image is only one step of the long chain of events to create a beautiful Photograph, I think, maybe not, well I think so, or do I.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The RB67 can get 2:1 with the 90mm standard lens w/o extension tubes - the bellows focusing extends 40mm+ and the floating lens elements found in the 50mm thru 140mm macro lenses allow good flat field focusing. The wider lenses will get very close, beyond 1:1 mag. ratio.
Originally Posted by michael9793
I'll admit: 35mm macro photography is easier but for prints greater than 5x7 inches 6x7 format is better; although, you can go closer with 35mm, especially if you use micro lenses which can give you 1:20 magnification ratio.
View cameras are great for doing macro work but movements offer no advantage with such shallow DOF.
"Pictures are not incidental frills to a text; they are essences of our distinctive way of knowing." Stephen J. Gould
The amount of extension needed is directly proportional to the focal length. Longer lenses (MF lenses are longer) thus need more extension than shorter lenses (like the ones used on 35 mm cameras and the even shorter ones used on sub-35 mm format digital sensor cameras) to reach the same degree of magnification.
Also, 35 mm format lenses are smaller, and fancy tricks, like not just using extension to reach a certain degree of magnification, but changing the focal length of the lens while focussing as well, are a lot cheaper then they would be if the lens would have to cover a larger format.
MF lenses are larger, thus put more weight on the focussing helicoid. This sets a mechanical limit to how far you can rack tsuch a thing out before it will start to sag under the strain.
So you will need rigid extension tubes sooner with larger formats than with smaller formats.
Now if all you want to record are three teeth at 1:1, and these fit inside a 35 mm frame, there is absolutely no reason to use a larger format. All you will get is more of what is next to the teeth, more of what you were not interested in.
If you want to photograph the same three teeth, but at a higher magnification, so the fill the larger 6x7 frame the same as they do the 35 mm frame, you will need a bigger, more cumbersome kit.
View camera's movements do offer advantages, because you can position the plane of focus more or less where you like. It is not necessary (as in cameras without movements) to have it paralel to the film plane. Can be of very great help to get more of the image in focus (and/or in depth of field).
I have used the extension tubes for a few months now, mostly with my 90mm (non LS) and 200mm f/4 (late) lenses. I was quite overwhelmed initially but now I get some really nice work with the setup. What I find most difficult is composition and framing and not having unwanted things coming in the picture and I don't pay attention to it in the waistlevel finder image. Focusing is no problems for me and proper depth of field is a matter of practise. Do you have the correction tables for lenses with the extension tubes? For close-up and macro I mostly shoot color negative - I apply the correction and then usually add about an extra stop or two of exposure to avoid getting black background areas. The lenses are both excellent and extremely sharp. The 90mm stops down to f/22 which may be a disadvantage whereas the 200mm goes to f/32. I hear some people recommending the 90-180mm zoom for macro. The minimum aperture is f/45. The lens is apparently very good but I have no idea about performance at f/45. I also have the reverse adapter which may produce some intriguing images but I have not yet tried it.
That depends entirely on your intention.
Originally Posted by panastasia
(I know it's an old thread, but I thought it was worth mentioning)
My dentist uses a "cord" on the end of which is a very small digital lens (smaller than the end-cap of a ballpoint pen).
Originally Posted by michael9793
With this, he can get down to just the crown of of a single tooth to display on his 17" monitor in live colour (in real time), a movie clip, or get a still of it for discussion of any defects in the tooth, old fillings, and work needed: fabulous!
Horses for courses.