Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,570   Posts: 1,545,482   Online: 1237
      
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 65
  1. #31
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    Well, we don't know how small are the objects that the OP is going to photograph. I certainly agree that, if they all are spherical, there is no point in rotating the focus plane. One assumes a photographer does not only take pictures of exactly spherical objects, and if they are not all exactly spherical (watches, jewels, who knows) a rotation in focal plane might give a substantial help for the final image quality (let's say aligning the focus plane with the dial - thickness of the watch). I never used a bellows with movements though, althought I've read it helps, I would be glad to be able to give an answer validated by personal experience.

    IIRC there was a Kenko bellows in the eighties (for 35mm) that had movements in both standards.

    Fabrizio
    See post #3

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterSense View Post
    Recently I have been trying to photograph a small round seed pod at about 1:1 with my Olympus OM1 and 50mm Macro with extension rings. I put the lens on f/22 which is probably an actual f/45 or so at 1:1. The 8x10 proofs I made aren't impressively sharp, and I think I have eliminated camera/subject motion as a cause.
    The maximum size would be 1" or 24mm, Next question?

    Steve
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    The maximum size would be 1" or 24mm, Next question?
    I would like to know what question this is supposed to be an answer to first.

  3. #33
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,221
    Smaller format always wins... unless you desire shallow depth of field.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    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.

  5. #35
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    I would like to know what question this is supposed to be an answer to first.
    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
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    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?

  7. #37
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,657
    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.

  8. #38
    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...

  9. #39
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,128
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    OO! I got one!
    1 inch is actually 25.4 millimeters.

    There.
    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
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  10. #40
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,867
    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.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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