Macro and camera format

Um, Steve, doesn't magnification matter too? Or are you talking about effective aperture?

Transparency, all that movements do is shift the plane of best focus around. This allows better use of the depth of field. At the magnifications and set apertures the original poster is using there is very little DoF. Movements won't create more.

Dan Fromm said:

Um, Steve, doesn't magnification matter too?

Click to expand...

That's covered in that "For a given image size".

Thank you Q.G. for answering for me. I specifically said "For a given image size" for a reason that you are wise enough to understand why it was included. I hope that 2011 is a better year than 2010 for you!

For those that missed it. "For a given image size" takes out format questions.

Steve

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). But I never used a bellows with movements, althought I've read it helps, I would be glad to be able to give an answer validated by experience.

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

Fabrizio

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

Diapositivo said:

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

Click to expand...

See post #3

BetterSense said:

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.

Click to expand...

The maximum size would be 1" or 24mm, Next question?

Steve

Sirius Glass said:

The maximum size would be 1" or 24mm, Next question?

Click to expand...

I would like to know what question this is supposed to be an answer to first.

Smaller format always wins... unless you desire shallow depth of field.

ic-racer said:

Smaller format always wins... unless you desire shallow depth of field.

Click to expand...

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.

Q.G. said:

I would like to know what question this is supposed to be an answer to first.

Click to expand...

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

Sirius Glass said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

Sirius Glass said:

Any more hairs to split??

Steve

Click to expand...

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

There.

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.

lxdude said:

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

There.

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

Sirius Glass said:

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

Click to expand...

Hey, you asked for it!

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.

BetterSense said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

BetterSense said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

hpulley said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

hpulley said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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?

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.)

Same as enlarger lenses. Thanks.

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

hpulley said:

Same as enlarger lenses. Thanks.

Click to expand...

But quite different thingies.