Macro ... was Why do only primes have macro

Bill Funk wrote:

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:33:27 GMT, no_name
wrote:


Bill Funk wrote:


On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:37:31 GMT, no_name
wrote:



If the image on the film is the same size as the physical object, it's 1:1.
That's all there is to it.



Strong as a brick, and twice as thick!


Are you saying this isn't right?


No, I'm saying Mark2 wasn't replying to what I posted, but to his own
strawman, intentionally mis-reading what was posted before. Several
times. Once is accident, twice is coincidence, three times is MALICE
AFORETHOUGHT.

Much as you have done by editing out all of the foregoing part of the
thread to make it appear I replied ONLY to the last line in the post.

Read the context.

The discussion thread drifted.

1:1 is macro, but on a LARGE FORMAT negative 1:1 is not sufficient
magnification for a desirable image.

Macro is 1:1, but Macro can also be 2:1, 4:1, 10:1 ...

With a LARGE FORMAT NEGATIVE you need more than 1:1 magnification to use
the available negative area.

Consider one inch grasshopper previously used as an example.

At 1:1 magnification it is more than 100% of the common APS sized
digital sensor frame.

At 1:1 magnification it IS 100% of the 35mm film frame.

At 1:1 magnification it fills 1% of a LARGE FORMAT 11"x14" NEGATIVE.
What do you propose to fill the other 99% if you photograph at 1:1?

BC wrote about a LARGE FORMAT NEGATIVE - 11"x14", that it would require
larger than life-size magnification to make a decent image.

Mark2 responded it didn't matter how large you blow up your print. Mark2
apparently doesn't know the difference between a Large Format Camera and
a large print.

Do you?

Although I tried to explain it simply, Mark2 chose to ignore the
distinction. Several times.

I don't know why I bother. Have it your way. 1:1 is macro and that's all
there is to it.

No one ever needed greater than 1:1 magnification, no matter what they
were doing. 1:1 is good enough and that's that.


Ok, it's all quoted.

Now, when I look up "macro" as it applies to photography, the vast
majority use 1:1.
That's what Mark said.
You're arguing.
Then you ask if I know the difference between a large format camera
and a large print. Where did that come from? Obviously, the 1:1 ratio
deals with the film/sensor, not a print.


Good. so now it's all quoted, go back and actually read what I wrote.

The difference between a large format camera and an enlarged print came
from [1] BC's comment that 1:1 was insufficient magnification to give a
pleasing image on the film for an 11'x14" camera. You can't fill the
frame and from [2] Mark2's response to BC that it didn't matter how much
you enlarged the print.

I tried to point out that BC wasn't posting about an enlarged print.

AND ... I was not talking about an enlarged print, I was talking about
the magnification necessary to obtain a well composed, pleasing image
with a large format camera.

But that keeps getting ignored.

In other words, he doesn't know the difference between a large format
camera and an enlarged print.

I'm not arguing that 1:1 is not macro. I only tried to point out that BC
didn't post anything about enlarging a print. And it went downhill from
there.

I asked a specific question, and your answer doesn't seem to be right.

And I tried to provide a specific answer; but no one seems to be able to
comprehend it. So I'll try to make it even simpler.

1:1 DOES NOT MATTER.

Mark2 did not respond to what BC originally posted, nor did he respond
to what I posted. The thread branched, and he didn't keep up.

Instead, he keeps belaboring 1:1. He keeps claiming I don't know what
I'm talking about, and then keeps responding to something I haven't
posted. And keeps NOT RESPONDING to what I did post.

I don't give a **** about 1:1. I care about a well composed, pleasing
image.

1:1 is not sufficient magnification to provide a pleasing image on large
format film, which is all BC said in the first place. You need MORE than
1:1 magnification to fill the frame and provide a well composed,
pleasing image.

But for some reason, no one seems to be able to comprehend what I'm
getting at.

************ IMPORTANT MESSAGE ****************

The responses I received did not address what I posted!

************ END OF IMPORTANT MESSAGE ****************

Your response did not address what I posted. The responses just keep
hammering on 1:1 is macro.

Ok, so let's look at it from a different direction.

Fasten your seatbelts ... THE THREAD IS CHANGING DIRECTIONS HERE.

**** Point #1

Is 1:4 macro? -- I'd say no, it's close focus, but not macro. Some
might argue differently. Ok, fine. Whatever.

Is 1:2 macro? -- mmmmmmmmm...maybe. Some might argue it is. I dunno'. I
don't really care.

Is 1:1 macro? -- Absodamntivly Posolutely!

BUT ...

What about 2:1, 4:1 or 10:1 ... all LARGER than life-size
magnifications. Are they Macro? -- I say YES they are.

You have to get up to much larger magnifications, I say around 100:1 or
250:1 before it becomes MICRO. (although Nikon seems to consider 1:1
micro - go figure).

**** Point #2

For our subject, I choose a postage stamp. I select this because anyone,
anywhere should be able to find a postage stamp.

The assignment is to obtain a well composed, pleasing image by FILLING
THE FRAME with the image of that postage stamp. The subject must fill
90% or more of the AREA of the final image.

Submission is specified as either an un-manipulated camera RAW image or
original transparancy. Un-cropped. Final composition must be exactly
what's captured on the sensor/film.

The art director wants images in multiple formats and will select the
one he wants from among them.

What magnification is required for the subject to fill the frame using
each of the following?

Canon A60 P&S digital

Nikon D100

Olympus Evolt E-300

Canon Digital Rebel

Whichever Canon model it is everyone keeps blathering about
having a "full frame" sensor.

Nikon F3

Hassleblad 501c

Any studio 4x5 view camera. (What can I say? The art director's
a freak.)

Hint: 1:1 ain't always gonna' be the answer.

no_name wrote:
Bill Funk wrote:

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:33:27 GMT, no_name
wrote:


Bill Funk wrote:


On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:37:31 GMT, no_name
wrote:



If the image on the film is the same size as the physical
object, it's 1:1. That's all there is to it.



Strong as a brick, and twice as thick!


Are you saying this isn't right?


No, I'm saying Mark2 wasn't replying to what I posted, but to his
own strawman, intentionally mis-reading what was posted before.
Several times. Once is accident, twice is coincidence, three times
is MALICE AFORETHOUGHT.

Much as you have done by editing out all of the foregoing part of
the thread to make it appear I replied ONLY to the last line in the
post. Read the context.

The discussion thread drifted.

1:1 is macro, but on a LARGE FORMAT negative 1:1 is not sufficient
magnification for a desirable image.

Macro is 1:1, but Macro can also be 2:1, 4:1, 10:1 ...

With a LARGE FORMAT NEGATIVE you need more than 1:1 magnification
to use the available negative area.

Consider one inch grasshopper previously used as an example.

At 1:1 magnification it is more than 100% of the common APS sized
digital sensor frame.

At 1:1 magnification it IS 100% of the 35mm film frame.

At 1:1 magnification it fills 1% of a LARGE FORMAT 11"x14" NEGATIVE.
What do you propose to fill the other 99% if you photograph at 1:1?

BC wrote about a LARGE FORMAT NEGATIVE - 11"x14", that it would
require larger than life-size magnification to make a decent image.

Mark2 responded it didn't matter how large you blow up your print.
Mark2 apparently doesn't know the difference between a Large Format
Camera and a large print.

Do you?

Although I tried to explain it simply, Mark2 chose to ignore the
distinction. Several times.

I don't know why I bother. Have it your way. 1:1 is macro and
that's all there is to it.

No one ever needed greater than 1:1 magnification, no matter what
they were doing. 1:1 is good enough and that's that.


Ok, it's all quoted.

Now, when I look up "macro" as it applies to photography, the vast
majority use 1:1.
That's what Mark said.
You're arguing.
Then you ask if I know the difference between a large format camera
and a large print. Where did that come from? Obviously, the 1:1 ratio
deals with the film/sensor, not a print.


Good. so now it's all quoted, go back and actually read what I wrote.

The difference between a large format camera and an enlarged print
came from [1] BC's comment that 1:1 was insufficient magnification to
give a pleasing image on the film for an 11'x14" camera. You can't
fill the frame and from [2] Mark2's response to BC that it didn't
matter how much you enlarged the print.

I tried to point out that BC wasn't posting about an enlarged print.

AND ... I was not talking about an enlarged print, I was talking about
the magnification necessary to obtain a well composed, pleasing image
with a large format camera.

But that keeps getting ignored.

In other words, he doesn't know the difference between a large format
camera and an enlarged print.

I'm not arguing that 1:1 is not macro. I only tried to point out that
BC didn't post anything about enlarging a print. And it went downhill
from there.

Actually, I've never argued that macro = 1:1.
I've simply pointed out that ratios of this kind are used to refer to one
thing only:
-The ability of a lens to cast an image on the film that is the same size as
the actual subject.
This remains true whether you call it "macro" or *anything else* you want to
call it.
I don't care about what officially constitutes "macro" and that was never
something I put forth.
I only pointed out that what may or may not be a usefully sized image...in
any format...has nothing whatever to do with why the ratio is referenced.

I asked a specific question, and your answer doesn't seem to be
right.

And I tried to provide a specific answer; but no one seems to be able
to comprehend it. So I'll try to make it even simpler.

1:1 DOES NOT MATTER.

Mark2 did not respond to what BC originally posted, nor did he respond
to what I posted. The thread branched, and he didn't keep up.

Instead, he keeps belaboring 1:1. He keeps claiming I don't know what
I'm talking about, and then keeps responding to something I haven't
posted. And keeps NOT RESPONDING to what I did post.

I don't give a **** about 1:1. I care about a well composed, pleasing
image.

Then talk about that.

1:1 is not sufficient magnification to provide a pleasing image on
large format film, which is all BC said in the first place.

Oops! There you go again!
You need
MORE than 1:1 magnification to fill the frame and provide a well
composed, pleasing image.

And there's where you fall off the wagon.
*A "pleasing image"...of...what???
Not if you want a life-size image of a grapefruit.
This generalizing about "pleasing image" is what throws people off, I think.

But for some reason, no one seems to be able to comprehend what I'm
getting at.

************ IMPORTANT MESSAGE ****************

The responses I received did not address what I posted!

************ END OF IMPORTANT MESSAGE ****************

Your response did not address what I posted. The responses just keep
hammering on 1:1 is macro.

Because you keep going on about how 1:1 doesn't give you a pleasing image,
and is somehow, therefor an improper use...or some such thing.

Ok, so let's look at it from a different direction.

Fasten your seatbelts ... THE THREAD IS CHANGING DIRECTIONS HERE.

**** Point #1

Is 1:4 macro? -- I'd say no, it's close focus, but not macro. Some
might argue differently. Ok, fine. Whatever.

I've never put forth that ANY particular ratio=macro (this has been put in
my mouth, somehow).
All I've said is that the ratio remains a constant indicator of film-plain
image size relative to actual subject. That's it. Nowhere have I used any
ratio to define what = "macro."

Is 1:2 macro? -- mmmmmmmmm...maybe. Some might argue it is. I
dunno'. I don't really care.

Neither do I.

Is 1:1 macro? -- Absodamntivly Posolutely!

BUT ...

What about 2:1, 4:1 or 10:1 ... all LARGER than life-size
magnifications. Are they Macro? -- I say YES they are.

Don't care.

You have to get up to much larger magnifications, I say around 100:1
or 250:1 before it becomes MICRO. (although Nikon seems to consider
1:1 micro - go figure).

Canon and Nikon use Macro and Micro interchangeably.

**** Point #2

For our subject, I choose a postage stamp. I select this because
anyone, anywhere should be able to find a postage stamp.

The assignment is to obtain a well composed, pleasing image by FILLING
THE FRAME with the image of that postage stamp. The subject must fill
90% or more of the AREA of the final image.

When did filling the frame become a defining charactristic of macro?
-That's where you divert, and lose everyone.

Submission is specified as either an un-manipulated camera RAW image
or original transparancy. Un-cropped. Final composition must be
exactly what's captured on the sensor/film.

The art director wants images in multiple formats and will select the
one he wants from among them.

What magnification is required for the subject to fill the frame using
each of the following?

Canon A60 P&S digital

Nikon D100

Olympus Evolt E-300

Canon Digital Rebel

Whichever Canon model it is everyone keeps blathering about
having a "full frame" sensor.

Nikon F3

Hassleblad 501c

Any studio 4x5 view camera. (What can I say? The art director's
a freak.)

Hint: 1:1 ain't always gonna' be the answer.

Of course not!
Who said otherwise?
Not me.

It is very interesting following this thread as I found that people tend to
believe his own comprehension and that's where all the arguments about. I
like it. Allow me to join in please.

1) Marco photography definition: To get an image on the film that is larger
than 1/10 of object size and an increased exposure compensation is needed.

2) Explanation: A true focal length of a lens is when it is in its infinity
setting. In reality, we take picture in all distances. We know that when we
do focusing at a closer distance than infinity, the lens extended away from
the film plane. This will cause light lost. But the exposure meter don't has
step-less exposure calibration to compensate this light lost. So
theoretically, the exposure is under slightly. As long as it is not visually
noticeable to us and don't show any difference in density at all, we accept
this tolerance. This happen when the image size is 1/10 of the object size
and that is 1:10 magnification. Larger than this magnification is consider
"Marco".

3) Close focus: Before zoom lens era, any close-up photography (More than
1/10 magnification) was done by using close-up lens, extension tube, bellow
and off course Macro lens or Micro lens by Nikon. But why Macro lens when
the other cheaper setting can do the task. Those setting not using Macro
lens is using lens that are not corrected for "Flat field". That means you
can't have both center and the corners in focus at the same time due to
"Lens curvature field". True Macro lens corrected for that. Off course you
can stop-down the aperture to increase the "Depth of field" but it is still
not a lens that can give you every point in focus on flat object.
The evolution of zoom lens makes close-up photography easier. It implements
the so-called "Macro" featured lens but is not appropriate to name that
because it is not "Flat field" and should call "Close focus lens" instead.
These zoom lenses can have magnification from 1/5 to 1/2 or 1:5 to 1:2, 1/5
to 1/2 life size (object size).

4) 1:1 macro needs an extension the same length of the focal length of the
lens. e.g 50mm lens need 50mm extension and total is 100mm from film plane,
needs a +2stops exposure compensation. Therefore, very close up photography
is not feasible using large format camera.



"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:rjD3f.1628$UF4.1564@fed1read02...
no_name wrote:
Bill Funk wrote:

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:33:27 GMT, no_name
wrote:


Bill Funk wrote:


On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:37:31 GMT, no_name
wrote:



If the image on the film is the same size as the physical
object, it's 1:1. That's all there is to it.



Strong as a brick, and twice as thick!


Are you saying this isn't right?


No, I'm saying Mark2 wasn't replying to what I posted, but to his
own strawman, intentionally mis-reading what was posted before.
Several times. Once is accident, twice is coincidence, three times
is MALICE AFORETHOUGHT.

Much as you have done by editing out all of the foregoing part of
the thread to make it appear I replied ONLY to the last line in the
post. Read the context.

The discussion thread drifted.

1:1 is macro, but on a LARGE FORMAT negative 1:1 is not sufficient
magnification for a desirable image.

Macro is 1:1, but Macro can also be 2:1, 4:1, 10:1 ...

With a LARGE FORMAT NEGATIVE you need more than 1:1 magnification
to use the available negative area.

Consider one inch grasshopper previously used as an example.

At 1:1 magnification it is more than 100% of the common APS sized
digital sensor frame.

At 1:1 magnification it IS 100% of the 35mm film frame.

At 1:1 magnification it fills 1% of a LARGE FORMAT 11"x14" NEGATIVE.
What do you propose to fill the other 99% if you photograph at 1:1?

BC wrote about a LARGE FORMAT NEGATIVE - 11"x14", that it would
require larger than life-size magnification to make a decent image.

Mark2 responded it didn't matter how large you blow up your print.
Mark2 apparently doesn't know the difference between a Large Format
Camera and a large print.

Do you?

Although I tried to explain it simply, Mark2 chose to ignore the
distinction. Several times.

I don't know why I bother. Have it your way. 1:1 is macro and
that's all there is to it.

No one ever needed greater than 1:1 magnification, no matter what
they were doing. 1:1 is good enough and that's that.


Ok, it's all quoted.

Now, when I look up "macro" as it applies to photography, the vast
majority use 1:1.
That's what Mark said.
You're arguing.
Then you ask if I know the difference between a large format camera
and a large print. Where did that come from? Obviously, the 1:1 ratio
deals with the film/sensor, not a print.


Good. so now it's all quoted, go back and actually read what I wrote.

The difference between a large format camera and an enlarged print
came from [1] BC's comment that 1:1 was insufficient magnification to
give a pleasing image on the film for an 11'x14" camera. You can't
fill the frame and from [2] Mark2's response to BC that it didn't
matter how much you enlarged the print.

I tried to point out that BC wasn't posting about an enlarged print.

AND ... I was not talking about an enlarged print, I was talking about
the magnification necessary to obtain a well composed, pleasing image
with a large format camera.

But that keeps getting ignored.

In other words, he doesn't know the difference between a large format
camera and an enlarged print.

I'm not arguing that 1:1 is not macro. I only tried to point out that
BC didn't post anything about enlarging a print. And it went downhill
from there.

Actually, I've never argued that macro = 1:1.
I've simply pointed out that ratios of this kind are used to refer to one
thing only:
-The ability of a lens to cast an image on the film that is the same size
as the actual subject.
This remains true whether you call it "macro" or *anything else* you want
to call it.
I don't care about what officially constitutes "macro" and that was never
something I put forth.
I only pointed out that what may or may not be a usefully sized image...in
any format...has nothing whatever to do with why the ratio is referenced.

I asked a specific question, and your answer doesn't seem to be
right.

And I tried to provide a specific answer; but no one seems to be able
to comprehend it. So I'll try to make it even simpler.

1:1 DOES NOT MATTER.

Mark2 did not respond to what BC originally posted, nor did he respond
to what I posted. The thread branched, and he didn't keep up.

Instead, he keeps belaboring 1:1. He keeps claiming I don't know what
I'm talking about, and then keeps responding to something I haven't
posted. And keeps NOT RESPONDING to what I did post.

I don't give a **** about 1:1. I care about a well composed, pleasing
image.

Then talk about that.

1:1 is not sufficient magnification to provide a pleasing image on
large format film, which is all BC said in the first place.

Oops! There you go again!
You need
MORE than 1:1 magnification to fill the frame and provide a well
composed, pleasing image.

And there's where you fall off the wagon.
*A "pleasing image"...of...what???
Not if you want a life-size image of a grapefruit.
This generalizing about "pleasing image" is what throws people off, I
think.

But for some reason, no one seems to be able to comprehend what I'm
getting at.

************ IMPORTANT MESSAGE ****************

The responses I received did not address what I posted!

************ END OF IMPORTANT MESSAGE ****************

Your response did not address what I posted. The responses just keep
hammering on 1:1 is macro.

Because you keep going on about how 1:1 doesn't give you a pleasing image,
and is somehow, therefor an improper use...or some such thing.

Ok, so let's look at it from a different direction.

Fasten your seatbelts ... THE THREAD IS CHANGING DIRECTIONS HERE.

**** Point #1

Is 1:4 macro? -- I'd say no, it's close focus, but not macro. Some
might argue differently. Ok, fine. Whatever.

I've never put forth that ANY particular ratio=macro (this has been put in
my mouth, somehow).
All I've said is that the ratio remains a constant indicator of film-plain
image size relative to actual subject. That's it. Nowhere have I used
any ratio to define what = "macro."

Is 1:2 macro? -- mmmmmmmmm...maybe. Some might argue it is. I
dunno'. I don't really care.

Neither do I.

Is 1:1 macro? -- Absodamntivly Posolutely!

BUT ...

What about 2:1, 4:1 or 10:1 ... all LARGER than life-size
magnifications. Are they Macro? -- I say YES they are.

Don't care.

You have to get up to much larger magnifications, I say around 100:1
or 250:1 before it becomes MICRO. (although Nikon seems to consider
1:1 micro - go figure).

Canon and Nikon use Macro and Micro interchangeably.

**** Point #2

For our subject, I choose a postage stamp. I select this because
anyone, anywhere should be able to find a postage stamp.

The assignment is to obtain a well composed, pleasing image by FILLING
THE FRAME with the image of that postage stamp. The subject must fill
90% or more of the AREA of the final image.

When did filling the frame become a defining charactristic of macro?
-That's where you divert, and lose everyone.

Submission is specified as either an un-manipulated camera RAW image
or original transparancy. Un-cropped. Final composition must be
exactly what's captured on the sensor/film.

The art director wants images in multiple formats and will select the
one he wants from among them.

What magnification is required for the subject to fill the frame using
each of the following?

Canon A60 P&S digital

Nikon D100

Olympus Evolt E-300

Canon Digital Rebel

Whichever Canon model it is everyone keeps blathering about
having a "full frame" sensor.

Nikon F3

Hassleblad 501c

Any studio 4x5 view camera. (What can I say? The art director's
a freak.)

Hint: 1:1 ain't always gonna' be the answer.

Of course not!
Who said otherwise?
Not me.

In article ,
"kctan" wrote:

Therefore, very close up photography
is not feasible using large format camera.


Nonsense. It is done all the time.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

In article , no_name
writes


1:1 DOES NOT MATTER.

Mark2 did not respond to what BC originally posted, nor did he respond
to what I posted. The thread branched, and he didn't keep up.

Instead, he keeps belaboring 1:1. He keeps claiming I don't know what
I'm talking about, and then keeps responding to something I haven't
posted. And keeps NOT RESPONDING to what I did post.

I don't give a **** about 1:1. I care about a well composed, pleasing
image.

1:1 is not sufficient magnification to provide a pleasing image on
large format film, which is all BC said in the first place. You need
MORE than 1:1 magnification to fill the frame and provide a well
composed, pleasing image.

But for some reason, no one seems to be able to comprehend what I'm
getting at.

What seems to be overlooked in all the dissent is that there is a very
logical reason for the apparent obsession of workers in the field with
the actual magnification ratio (be it 1:1 or some other figure). That is
that the effective aperture of the lens is directly governed by the
reproduction ratio. Since much high magnification work is done without
the benefit of TTL metering, this is of prime importance.


Is 1:4 macro? -- I'd say no, it's close focus, but not macro. Some
might argue differently. Ok, fine. Whatever.

Is 1:2 macro? -- mmmmmmmmm...maybe. Some might argue it is. I dunno'.
I don't really care.

Is 1:1 macro? -- Absodamntivly Posolutely!

BUT ...

What about 2:1, 4:1 or 10:1 ... all LARGER than life-size
magnifications. Are they Macro? -- I say YES they are.

You have to get up to much larger magnifications, I say around 100:1 or
250:1 before it becomes MICRO. (although Nikon seems to consider 1:1
micro - go figure).

Please see my post at the beginning of this thread, where I set out the
definitions generally accepted by serious workers in the fields of
photomacrography and photomicrography. The boundaries are really set by
the techniques used (which is a meaningful reason) rather than on an
arbitrary basis (which is not). BTW, fyi the beginning of
photomicrography is about 25:1, the point at which it starts to be more
convenient to use a microscope rather than the macro techniques used at
lower ratios.

**** Point #2

For our subject, I choose a postage stamp. I select this because
anyone, anywhere should be able to find a postage stamp.

The assignment is to obtain a well composed, pleasing image by FILLING
THE FRAME with the image of that postage stamp. The subject must fill
90% or more of the AREA of the final image.

Submission is specified as either an un-manipulated camera RAW image or
original transparancy. Un-cropped. Final composition must be exactly
what's captured on the sensor/film.

The art director wants images in multiple formats and will select the
one he wants from among them.

What magnification is required for the subject to fill the frame using
each of the following?

Canon A60 P&S digital

Nikon D100

Olympus Evolt E-300

Canon Digital Rebel

Whichever Canon model it is everyone keeps blathering about
having a "full frame" sensor.

Nikon F3

Hassleblad 501c

Any studio 4x5 view camera. (What can I say? The art director's
a freak.)

Hint: 1:1 ain't always gonna' be the answer.

No one has ever disputed the correctness of your point (i.e. that to
fill a larger format with a given subject requires a higher
magnification ratio) only its relevance to the original discussion.

You are as one trying to teach granny to suck eggs when egg-sucking is
not on the agenda.

David
--
David Littlewood

I said very close up is not feasible and not impossible please and by that I
means at least 2:1 magnification because the bellow extension will be too
long and you have difficulty in viewing the image on the ground glass. Depth
of field is shallow and you don't have that kind of aperture to stop-down
to improve. If you are a prof. you'll understand what I mean.


"Bob Salomon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"kctan" wrote:

Therefore, very close up photography
is not feasible using large format camera.


Nonsense. It is done all the time.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

In article ,
"kctan" wrote:

I said very close up is not feasible and not impossible please and by that I
means at least 2:1 magnification because the bellow extension will be too
long and you have difficulty in viewing the image on the ground glass. Depth
of field is shallow and you don't have that kind of aperture to stop-down
to improve. If you are a prof. you'll understand what I mean.

Nonsense.

With a 120mm Apo Macro Sironar you can easily reach 2:1 and greater, if
you have a modular monorail camera or one with a long enough built-in
bellows. In the case of the Master Technika with a 360mm long extension
you can easily get several times 2:1 with a macro like a Luminar.

If you have a basic LF camera with a fixed 12" bed and bellows then you
would be somewhat more limited in range with a macro like the 120 but
not with a macro like the Luminar.

As for DOF you can maximize the plane of sharpness with lens movements
and subject shape with back movements. Then you can increase the DOF for
better overall sharpness with the aperture ring. This assumes, of course
that you are shooting at a bit of an angle and not head on. If shooting
head on - say a picture of the detail in the car on the back of the
$10.00 US bill the DOF would be more then adequate at the magnifications
the Luminar permits.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

In article , no_name
writes
Hint: 1:1 ain't always gonna' be the answer.

No one says that it is, what you require has no bearing on what macro
is.
--
Ian G8ILZ

In article , no_name
writes
**** Point #2

For our subject, I choose a postage stamp. I select this because
anyone, anywhere should be able to find a postage stamp.

I chose an oak leaf.

The assignment is to obtain a well composed, pleasing image by FILLING
THE FRAME with the image of that postage stamp. The subject must fill
90% or more of the AREA of the final image.

The oak leaf filled the frame at 1:1 (macro), the postage stamp filled
my Minox B at less than 1:1.
--
Ian G8ILZ

In article , no_name
writes
1:1 is not sufficient magnification to provide a pleasing image on
large format film,

And if the subject is an oak leaf?
--
Ian G8ILZ