A 1:1 35mm macro shot enlarged 8x is a 8:1 photo. IOW, the object is 8x life size. A 1:1 8x10 is still 1:1. Now a 1:8 35mm and a 1:1 8x10 would be about the same image but the 8x10 shot should be sharper looking, and have a far smoother tonality.
Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill D. Casselberry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 11:47 AM Subject: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro > Dr E D F Williams wrote: > > > > Bob, > > > > I think you answered too quickly without fully getting the point. I didn't > > say, or imply, that because this matter had been discussed before it should > > not be again. You jumped to that conclusion. Furthermore, after re-reading > > what I wrote, I think its perfectly clear that I'm talking about one > > instance where 35 mm is superior to larger formats in sharpness and > > everything else. The ratios I quote are reproduction ratios and have nothing > > whatsoever to do with the ratios of the sides of a frame as you say - but > > The point I was replying to - missing here - is that a larger format > > does not mean better quality - in one particular case at least. A > > picture taken at 1:1 on 35 mm will usually be superior in sharpness > > and quality to one taken on 10 x 8 at 1:1 *because the 35 mm lenses are > > invariably better corrected* than those for larger formats. > > Ummm - not so sure, myself. Seems to me that a 1:1 done on > an 8x10 monorail w/ the necessary extension would hold its > own quite nicely against an 8x enlargment from even an ex- > cellent 35mm macro set-up. Upon enlargment the compressed > "info/data" on the 35mm film couldn't match the definition > and detail captured directly onto the larger film. > > Bill > > --------------------------------------------------------- > Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast > > http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------- >
