Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,274   Posts: 1,534,614   Online: 1084
      
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51
  1. #21
    Sportera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    New Orleans La.
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    933
    Images
    82
    I print 35mm at 12x18. My negs vary from fine grained film to hp5.

    I think the best advice I ever recieved was to let go of my hatred of grain and embrace it.

    I use 35mm for the ease and freedom it affords, but also for the effect it allows in the final print. Grain is not an enemy, it adds so much atmosphere and reality.

    Choose the tool that best suits the subject, and conditions.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East Rutherford, NJ
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    40
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Sportera View Post
    Grain is not an enemy, it adds so much atmosphere and reality.
    I agree completely. I mean, isn't films grain structure the reason why we shoot film ?

  3. #23
    Dave Krueger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Sportera View Post
    I think the best advice I ever recieved was to let go of my hatred of grain and embrace it.
    I agree and I come from a background of fighting grain for decades. All my exhibition prints are 16x20s and many are from ISO 400 film. If I reject a picture, it's highly unlikely that it will have anything to do with grain. Usually it's rejected for being a piss-poor composition, not in sharp focus, under exposed, over exposed, glare, etc, etc.

    Now, I actually think about how grain can enhance my pictures and I experiment with how to make the grain look like I want it to look. I feel like you in that it's opened a whole new world to me, like a kid with a new toy.

  4. #24
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rural NW Missouri
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,801
    I declined to provide 30x40 inch prints from 35mm for a friend's restaurant because the grain from 35mm T-Max 100 and Tech Pan would have been objectionable. Sho opted for another photographer's 35mm Kodak High Speed Infrared 30x40 prints. The grain is little more conspicuous than the pointilism in Seurat's La Grande Jatte, and that painting is much admired. Standards in art are often mere proclamations by uncreative critics and pedagogues. We're each entitled to our own preferences.

  5. #25
    Dave Krueger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Jones View Post
    I declined to provide 30x40 inch prints from 35mm for a friend's restaurant because the grain from 35mm T-Max 100 and Tech Pan would have been objectionable. Sho opted for another photographer's 35mm Kodak High Speed Infrared 30x40 prints. The grain is little more conspicuous than the pointilism in Seurat's La Grande Jatte, and that painting is much admired. Standards in art are often mere proclamations by uncreative critics and pedagogues. We're each entitled to our own preferences.
    It's true that I don't do traditional large format landscapes, so my thinking may be skewed. To someone who has spent a lifetime squeezing the best performance out of a view camera, 35mm might constitute an unbearble eyesore for a large size print. I just think that grain can, at times, actually be an asset.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    277
    I've just added a new fave to my list of 35mm films: Fuji's (relatively) new Provia 400X...wow. I have never seen such good color saturation in a 400 ISO slide film before, they absolutely leap out at you. And the grain is now so small that it's about in the territory that 100 speed film was twenty years ago. I can't wait to see what this stuff looks like when it's cross-processed.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    139

    35mm Sharpness

    This post raises some questions that I have been curious about. Most of my B&W work is with 2-1/4 square medium format. I much prefer the larger negative for simple ease in printing. I feel the tonality is marginally better, but more importantly, I feel I get sharper prints with 2-1/4. This may be due to the extra care when shooting, don't know for sure. I usually use a tripod when shooting medium format with Mamiya C330 or Rolleicord IV.

    Recently I reprinted the attached 35mm photo taken 25 years ago with a Nikon F2 and 35mm F2.0 lens. The film was Tri-X shot probably at F5.6. The edge sharpness on this print is not good. I do not believe it shows up well in the scan, but is very evident on the print. Left of the G in High and right of the window frame is quite soft on the print. The bottom row of block is getting soft, but the I beam is very clear in the center section of the print, but fades on the left side and right side.

    I feel that I would get these results consistently with 35mm, but not with the 2-1/4 square negatives. Does anyone else out there get similar results with 35mm?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Get High, Drugs0001.JPG  

  8. #28
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Loren, what you're describing sounds to me like an issue of the lens you used. As a Nikon shooter (when I do 35mm stuff), my own opinion is that the Nikon 35s are the least impressive lenses in their lineup- far inferior to the 50s, for example. The new Zeiss 35/2 ZF for Nikon mount is substantially superior to the Nikon 35s and should not show that edge weakness.

    http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...35_2/index.htm

    Anyway, I don't understand this whole question of whether MF is better than 35mm, or LF is better than MF, or whatever. Every format has strengths and weaknesses. In the hands of a competent photographer, the weaknesses very rarely matter.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  9. #29
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Sattler View Post
    This post raises some questions that I have been curious about. Most of my B&W work is with 2-1/4 square medium format. I much prefer the larger negative for simple ease in printing. I feel the tonality is marginally better, but more importantly, I feel I get sharper prints with 2-1/4. This may be due to the extra care when shooting, don't know for sure. I usually use a tripod when shooting medium format with Mamiya C330 or Rolleicord IV.

    Recently I reprinted the attached 35mm photo taken 25 years ago with a Nikon F2 and 35mm F2.0 lens. The film was Tri-X shot probably at F5.6. The edge sharpness on this print is not good. I do not believe it shows up well in the scan, but is very evident on the print. Left of the G in High and right of the window frame is quite soft on the print. The bottom row of block is getting soft, but the I beam is very clear in the center section of the print, but fades on the left side and right side.

    I feel that I would get these results consistently with 35mm, but not with the 2-1/4 square negatives. Does anyone else out there get similar results with 35mm?
    This softness is not a result of the format. It is a camera/lens/focus, or enlarger/lens/focus thing.

  10. #30
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,238
    Images
    148
    After looking at Loren's scan I agree with Jason and would just add it could also caused by lack of neg flatness in the enlarger, it's highly unlikely that softness in the corners is caused by the taking lens.

    Ian

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