Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,540   Posts: 1,544,300   Online: 882
      
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 65
  1. #41
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,646
    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.

  2. #42
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,284
    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

  3. #43

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

  4. #44
    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...

  5. #45

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

  6. #46
    hpulley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,214
    Images
    75
    May just have been 35mm defenders but the old adage was always that 8x10 lenses didn't need to be that sharp as they weren't enlarged 10-20x on printing like 35mm needed to be for anything more than the 4x6" snapshot developing plus prints option at the lab.

    Which 16 and 25mm lenses cover 8x10" sheets and have good close focus characteristics?
    Harry Pulley - Visit the BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE FORUM

    Happiness is...

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Zeiss Luminars, Olympus bellow head lenses (they were/are 20 mm and 38 mm in focal length), Leitz Photar lenses. I'm sure Nikon and others make the same type 'micro'-lenses as well.

    Mind you, they only cover large formats at high(ish) magnifications. But then, that's what they are made for.

    Different focal lengths are not chosen to get a different field of view, but are optimized for different magnifications (or rather, ranges of magnifications), so are chosen to match the magnification you're after.
    As a rule, the higher the magnification you are after, the shorter the lens that's best suited. (For instance: the 16 mm Zeiss Luminar is best for 10 - 40 x, for a bit less, 6 - 25 x, the 25 mm Luminar would be better.)
    Last edited by Q.G.; 01-02-2011 at 07:42 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #48
    hpulley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,214
    Images
    75
    Same as enlarger lenses. Thanks.
    Harry Pulley - Visit the BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE FORUM

    Happiness is...

  9. #49
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Well, just to split my half hair, if the spheric seed is opaque, you cannot see from any angle more than half of it, so you only need half inch of depth of field

    The question of the OP I think can be generalized beyond the macro field. If you use a 200 mm lens, on whichever camera, to take a shot of a landscape, and there is a certain bell tower in this landscape, the absolute size of the bell tower on the film will be the same regardless of the dimension of the photogram. On an APS, 135, 120, or LF film, given a certain focal lenght, the dimension of the object is the same, and the DOF is the same.

    We have the "impression" 200mm is more a tele in a small format because we don't get, and don't print, all what would have been "around" the bell tower.

    So if you use a 200 mm with a 4"x5" and with a 135, if you only print a 24x36 portion of your 4"x5" film, you have the exact same results.

    The same applies to macro photography. So, strictly speaking you need a larger format than 24 x 36 only if you need a 1:1 reproduction, on film, of a subject that is "bigger than 24 x 36". (Or you need LF because you need movements and it is easier with LF).

    At the end of the day, you can always use LF with movements, take a LF picture, and only print a 24x36 portion of it, but you will have used the Scheimpflug law.

    Post #3 seems to suggest that maybe the OP deems that the actual f/value of 44 has an influence on the DOF. If this is the case, I'd like to say that to my (quite imperfect) knowledge, it has not. The light fall caused by extension tubes, bellows, or teleconverters, is not accompanied by a correspondent DOF increase, nor by a correspondent diffraction increase, because DOF and diffraction, as far as I know, depend on diaphragm aperture.

    Fabrizio
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by hpulley View Post
    Same as enlarger lenses. Thanks.
    But quite different thingies.

Page 5 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