Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,967   Posts: 1,632,648   Online: 911
      
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 58
  1. #21
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,913
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    It's not vapor ware, I'll pm you about it as it's beyond responding to workflow issues with film now.
    Thank you for taking that stuff off-line Athiril.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  2. #22
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    6x6 will be better than 645.
    Unless you crop to 4:3!
    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.

  3. #23
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,913
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Unless you crop to 4:3!
    Which way?

    Cropping 6x6 to 4:3 yields 6x45 vertical or horizontal. Cropping 645 "against the grain" yields something smaller.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Alamo City, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,263
    Yes, cropping to a particular aspect ratio affects usable film real estate. I prefer longer images... minimum 1.5:1 (2:3)... so I'd be comparing 135, 6x4.5cm and 6x7cm to 6x9cm. Losing a bit off the short end of 135 increases the quality difference with 6x4.5cm but cropping a bit off of the long edge of 6x4.5 decreases the difference. If we go to 6x12cm then there's effectively no advantage going to 4x5. There's absolutely no comparison between 135 and 6x9cm, IMHO.

    ETA: Every little bit counts though the difference between two adjacent formats can be like demanding a penny in change back after spending a dollar. Okay, it's more like demanding a dime or fifteen cents back... or maybe 35 cents.
    Last edited by Old-N-Feeble; 05-30-2012 at 09:03 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #25
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,838
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Which way?

    Cropping 6x6 to 4:3 yields 6x45 vertical or horizontal. Cropping 645 "against the grain" yields something smaller.
    Notice I said "Unless you crop to 4:3", "you" in this case being Steve, who is so Siriusly in love with his Hasselblad he thinks of its format as sex-by-sex!
    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.

  6. #26
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,754
    Images
    294
    The question you should really ask yourself: Is the 35mm negative good enough for what I wish to achieve? If you can say yes to that question, get on with the photography and don’t look back. It seems to me you are mighty pleased with what you achieve. If you’re happy with the 16x20” prints, then what else do you need?

    I think you answered your own question. What everybody else thinks is not really a concern, unless the prints you make are for something like a wedding, professional portrait, or some other form of work that you sell to a customer. If that’s the case, you should take their demands in print size into account. If somebody asked you to make a 30x40” print from the same negative, could you do it? Is that important?
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    340
    For colour work I can only comment on Reala for print and Velvia for transparency. I've had prints made from 35mm in both (Nikon), and in 6x7 (Mamiya RB67). In both cases the prolab I use scans and prints digitally to resolve 256 dpi on the print. For 35mm the prints are good. I've had up to 12"x16" made. From a distance they look great, close up they start to fall apart. The 6x7 is a different league, at 12"x16" the detail just goes on and on. Even comparing 5"x7" prints, there is a difference. It's small but it has an effect on the tonality, not sharpness. The prints from 6x7 just seem to have a better tonal transition. Hard to describe. Since starting to shoot 6x7 I use it whenever I can even though it's somewhat inconvienient in the field when trying to shoot macro at greater than life size!

  8. #28
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,696
    However good Portra 160 and 400 are in 135 size they are better at around 3, 4, or 5 times the negative area on 6x4.5, 6x6, and 6x7 120 film, and I shoot both films in 35mm and 120.
    Ben

  9. #29
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,913
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Notice I said "Unless you crop to 4:3", "you" in this case being Steve, who is so Siriusly in love with his Hasselblad he thinks of its format as sex-by-sex!


    I do find 6x6 really interesting, one of the focusing screens for my RB is marked with crop lines both ways and I find myself framing 6x6 quite naturally.

    Another has no crop lines and again I see square but I need to be careful at the edges.

    My third screen is a microprism screen marked for portrait, love it for focus but I struggle with the "suggested" crop.

    6x6 is really alluring, I can see Steve's fascination.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  10. #30
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by kevs View Post
    Although your 16" x 20" prints from 35mm look good, if you compare them with prints the same size from 120 negs (excluding those shot on 'toy' cameras), because you're enlarging less, you'll see less grain, smoother tones and more detail. Modern films may have brought 35mm to a point that you can obtain huge print sizes, but think of the same film used in 120 cameras.
    (emphasis added)
    Including those shot on 120 "toy" cameras, you'll see less grain, etc., etc. I haven't compared detail from my Holga to my Nikon, though. (But I did compare my Nikon to my Graflex.) Might be a fun test, just to do it.
    +1 on everything else. I started out with medium format, and I never built up a 35mm kit. No point to it.

    Yes, film has gotten better and better. I'll go off and mope about Kodak chrome...

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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