Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,740   Posts: 1,670,463   Online: 662
      
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 60
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    Smaller format always wins... unless you desire shallow depth of field.
    I don't think so. And i don't think so.

    Smaller formats push you towards a format driven approach much sooner, i.e force you - because of compositional reasons - to make do with less in-camera magnification.

    And that same size image mentioned before also means same DoF, no matter what format.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    The question I answered was based on 35mm film. The maximum image size of a complete sphere on 35mm film would be 24mm. Therefore a 1 inch image on film would be the maximum size image that could be recorded on 35mm film. If the OP, as stated, did not care about the film format, 1 inch or approximately 24mm would be the maximum image size on film that the OP would be considering. The rest follows the logic out lined by the Greek philosophers approximately 2,500 to 3,500 years ago. The rest is supplied by W. Smith's book on optics, which is considered at many universities as a starting place for studying optics.

    Any more hairs to split??

    Steve
    Apart from quite a few in this post, yes.
    And you call them hairs... It's something thicker than a hair.

    Better sense complained about the lack of image quality at f/45 (effectively), and your answer was: 1 inch or 24 mm.
    Have you been emptying left over bottles from a new years eve party?

  3. #33
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,858
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post

    Any more hairs to split??

    Steve
    OO! I got one!
    1 inch is actually 25.4 millimeters.

    There.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  4. #34
    hpulley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,214
    Images
    75
    I think the point, said several times already, has still been missed though. A 50mm macro lens at focusing distance for 1:1 renders a 24mm object as 24mm on film regardless of film size or format. It is 24mm on 135, 120, 4x5 or 8x10 film. The depth of field will be the same too if the aperture is the same as the focal length and subject distance will be the same. Diffraction effects will also be the same at the same aperture. Printing the image to the same scale for the object will yield the same results given equal lens performance.

    Things will only change if you decide that rather than 1:1 macro (which is what the OP asked for) you want to fill the piece of film with the image of your object. Then you need 1:1 on 135, ~2:1 (approximately double lifesize) on 120, 4:1 on 4x5 or 8:1 on 8x10 which will require you to change the focal length or subject distance which will change the depth of field and may require different apertures, yielding different diffraction effects. Printing the object to the same object scale will yield different results.

    For diffraction you need to see the smallest detail you need to capture. f/22 is surely too small. f/11 would be much better and f/8 might be better still but you may then have too narrow a depth of field for even a seed especially if you go beyond 1:1 which you may need to do for a small seed even on 35mm film.
    Harry Pulley - Visit the BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE FORUM

    Happiness is...

  5. #35
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,997
    Things will only change if you decide that rather than 1:1 macro (which is what the OP asked for) you want to fill the piece of film with the image of your object. Then you need 1:1 on 135, ~2:1 (approximately double lifesize) on 120, 4:1 on 4x5
    Exactly. But, you will have to enlarge the 4x5 sheet 1/4 as much as the 35mm! So does it all cancel out? Does shooting at 4:1 then contact printing have any advantage over shooting at 1:1 and enlarging 4x?

    People talk like shooting to smaller magnification and enlarging is better than shooting at larger magnification then enlarging less. At least that's the way it seems because they always advocate 35mm for macro applications and say leave the view camera at home. Landscape, it's exactly the opposite, both for supposed image quality reasons.
    f/22 and be there.

  6. #36
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,858
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    I said that 24mm was approximately 1 inch. Actually 24mm would not let the edges of the sphere show. By making the approximation and then using that image size, I was eliminating the format size from the question.

    'dude, you gotta start drinkin' later in the day.

    Steve
    Hey, you asked for it!
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  7. #37
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,764
    Images
    20
    A lot may depend on factors like the lenses you actually have in hand for the formats you are shooting, and I wouldn't discount grain as a factor in what the final print is going to look like.

    One thing to be aware of, if you've got a really good macro lens for 35mm is that it will cover larger formats at larger magnification, if you can find a way to mount it physically to the camera. At the same time, it may be the case that the lens is better optimized for the magnification ratios likely encountered with the primary format than with the format the lens has been adapted to (say 1x-5x on 35mm could be better than 8x-40x on 8x10").

    Just run some tests and make some prints with what you have, and you'll see what you like. When I've had a particular macro project, that's what I've done, trying different lenses, reversed lenses, enlarging lenses, etc. at different reproduction ratios, and seeing what works. If you have a real macro lens for 35mm, it may look better than a non-macro lens for 4x5", at macro magnifications. You may find, for instance, that a lens that isn't a dedicated macro lens for the magnification ratio at hand introduces an unexpected distortion or an internal reflection or flare (adequately shading a reversed lens can be tricky) that produces a hot spot, negating any other advantage of the lens.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by BetterSense View Post
    Exactly. But, you will have to enlarge the 4x5 sheet 1/4 as much as the 35mm! So does it all cancel out? Does shooting at 4:1 then contact printing have any advantage over shooting at 1:1 and enlarging 4x?

    People talk like shooting to smaller magnification and enlarging is better than shooting at larger magnification then enlarging less. At least that's the way it seems because they always advocate 35mm for macro applications and say leave the view camera at home. Landscape, it's exactly the opposite, both for supposed image quality reasons.
    It does indeed cancel out. That is: except the better detail and less obvious 'film artifacts' you get when you record a larger image on film that is subsequently enlarged less.
    So yes, shooting at larger magnifications is better (but - depending on the difference in film format, of course - only marginally).

    It means, however, you have to use more difficult to handle larger format equipment.
    And that's what behind the advice to use 35 mm format.

    But it is a clash of the two approaches i mentioned before: the first is the compositional/format driven one, which comes with the benefit of better image quality when you step up in format. The second is the magnification driven approach, in which (as long as the subject fits in the format at the desired magnification) favours the smaller format (for greater ease of use with the same image quality).
    So what to do is something that has to be decided on a case by case basis.

    On top of that, you get all those considerations David mentioned.

  9. #39
    hpulley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,214
    Images
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by BetterSense View Post
    Exactly. But, you will have to enlarge the 4x5 sheet 1/4 as much as the 35mm! So does it all cancel out? Does shooting at 4:1 then contact printing have any advantage over shooting at 1:1 and enlarging 4x?

    People talk like shooting to smaller magnification and enlarging is better than shooting at larger magnification then enlarging less. At least that's the way it seems because they always advocate 35mm for macro applications and say leave the view camera at home. Landscape, it's exactly the opposite, both for supposed image quality reasons.
    Assuming good lenses and film, a two, four or eight times lifesize image will contain more detail than a lifesize image. The only catch here is the depth of field and diffraction effects. This affects landscapes and portraits as well but I think the extreme DOF at close focus distances makes the problem worse for that work than for landscapes.

    I'm trying to think if you'll have 8x narrower DOF at 8:1 or more than that. If it is 8x narrower will it be less obvious in a contact print than the required 8x enlargement of a 1:1 image? Is there a nonlinear factor which won't come out in the wash?

    Grain and tonality will be better on the larger piece of film. If the other factors can be practically overcome then the larger format should win but can you buy or make an 8:1 setup for an 8x10 camera?
    Harry Pulley - Visit the BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE FORUM

    Happiness is...

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by hpulley View Post
    I'm trying to think if you'll have 8x narrower DOF at 8:1 or more than that. If it is 8x narrower will it be less obvious in a contact print than the required 8x enlargement of a 1:1 image? Is there a nonlinear factor which won't come out in the wash?
    If the final magnification is the same, DoF is too.

    There isn't enough DoF anyway, so an 8x reduction of it may sound pretty impressive, 1/8th of nothing isn't significantly less.


    Quote Originally Posted by hpulley View Post
    Grain and tonality will be better on the larger piece of film. If the other factors can be practically overcome then the larger format should win but can you buy or make an 8:1 setup for an 8x10 camera?
    Yes, you can. You just don't use a 210 mm lens.

    You typically use very short lenses (i use 16 and 25 mm lenses mostly) when in-camera magnification gets beyond 3 or 4x life-size.

    It's not just grain and tonality, but also that - because of the larger in-camera magnification - you resolve more subject detail. Enlarging an image recorded on a bit of film will not increase the amount of detail you see in the subject, just enlarges what you have captured on it at that lower magnification. Get to the same size magnification on film, and there will be more detail in the captured image.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin