Switch to English Language Passer en langue franÁaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,566   Posts: 1,545,379   Online: 1026
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40
  1. #21
    Flotsam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    S.E. New York State
    Posts
    3,221
    Images
    13
    Stephen, I'm not not sure what aspects of your 8x10 prints you are unhappy with. Every format has it's has it's own unique characteristics but I love 35mm SLR photography. Other formats make me feel like I am working a camera while I find shooting 35mm is as natural seeing or speaking. It is a wonderful expressive tool that is unashamed to display the attributes that are inherently photographic. The Grain, the contrast, the compression and razor thin DoF of the long, fast, lenses, the wild perspectives of the wides the spontaneity of working hand held. This is beginning to sound like a "why i love SF photography..." thread.

    You're the boss. Print smaller or shoot larger. When it looks good to your eye, that's it.

    This shot was taken on 100 speed film and printed 8x10, I wouldn't hesitate to go 11x14. If you get close enough, you can see grain in the smooth areas but nothing that would distract from the photograph even if you were looking for it.
    Last edited by Flotsam; 03-06-2005 at 05:24 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
    =Neal W.=

  2. #22
    BWGirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,050
    Images
    18
    I guess everyone has pretty much run the gamut between '8x10 is fine' and '5x7 is max'. I enlarge until the width is 10 (the long side of the negative is enlarged until it reaches 10"). I find that I get pretty sharp images with less grain. I shoot a lot of landscape-y things.
    BTW...I really like that shot of the shadows on the street! Cool stuff!
    Jeanette
    .................................................. ................
    Isaiah 25:1

  3. #23
    eagleowl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    127

    I recently...

    ...got back from a holiday visiting my in~laws(Chile-AMAZING country!),and my wife and I wanted to give them something which showed them something about my home town.
    We decided that I'd do some photos of some of the more attractive local buildings.
    I shot on 35mm format foma 100 and printed at 8x10 on Ilford MGIV.
    The result was beautiful!
    A common mistake people made when designing something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

    Computers are incredibly stupid,but they are capable of being incredibly stupid many millions of times a second.

    Both said by Doug Adams

    Only put off until tomorrow that which you are prepared to die having not done-Pablo Picasso

  4. #24
    SLNestler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Coral Springs, FL
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen J. Collier
    I have become accustomed to looking at a certain level of print quality that my 35mm 8x10ís donít come close to (they are not even in the same city, let alone the same ball park). I have tried different films and different developers and although there is some difference in the grain and tonality my resulting prints still lack the overall quality that I want.
    Stephen,
    Are you printing with a condenser enlarger? The collimated light, while it gives apparent sharpness, highlights grain and chops up tonality; a cold light would make a big difference. And there is certainly nothing wrong with smaller prints. I would recommend using an easel that crops on 4 sides, and make larger margins; that will help you to better see the tonality; especially in highlights near the edge.
    Finally, if you are still unsatisfied, but committed to 35mm, you might try a Pyro developer. That masks grain and gives amazing tonality, as well as "edge effects" that give better sharpness. Of course, there are drawbacks to Pyro, but it is one possibility.
    Steven Nestler
    http://stevennestler.com

  5. #25
    Stephen J. Collier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    163
    Images
    15
    Thank you all for your suggestions. For those who asked, I am using a Vivitar VI condensing enlarger (not a great enlarger by any standard, but it was had for the right price) with a Rodenstock 50mm f3.5 lens.

    Looking back at my prints I can see that the ones that I didn't like were most often either incorrectly exposed or they were shot in very low light situation where I had to open the aperture past f/2 and slow the shutter speed down to 1/30 or 1/60. I have an aversion to using a flash (I hate the harsh shadows) so during the winter when I am shooting indoors there is little more I can do than shoot slow and wide... Oh well, Iíll just have to wait for better weather and better light.
    [COLOR=DarkOliveGreen][SIZE=2]"We are not at War, we are having a nervous breakdown". Hunter S. Thompson[/SIZE][/COLOR]

  6. #26
    SuzanneR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,735
    Images
    139
    Try Delta 3200. I've been shooting a lot inside too, in low light. (Hate flash!), and I've been getting some interesting images with this film. Yes it's grainy, (love grain!), but it might be something to experiment with during what seems like an endless winter. For us in snowy New England, at least!

    Good luck!

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    726
    I regularly make 35mm prints on paper up to 16 x 20, although I print at or near full frame, so they are actually 13-14 x 20. People tend to look at larger prints from further away, so the apparent quality evens out to some degree. That said, I use 6 x 7 if I want real quality. Assuming you have good negs to start with, a good condenser enlarger and lens also helps as does developing the prints for longer than the full minute recommended and at a proper temperature.

    David.

  8. #28
    garryl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    542
    Images
    2
    What has changed in 69 years? I just got a collection of American Photography magazine from 1938-39. I also got 1 issue of Minicam from 1940. In them are people showing off 20-40x enlargements from 35mm. They seem awful happy to me with their DuPont Valour Black prints from their Agfa Finopan negatives. Have standards changed that much or has technical excellence replaced esthics? Or are we expecting to much LF qualities from our "miniatures"?
    I myself have printed excellent( subjective opinion) 16x20 prints from PanF negatives that were - very low grained, sharp, and full of gradation. I can't see the problem.
    --------------------
    Stephen- out of focus areas, camera movement, and incorrect exposure are all contributer to grain. So to quote another poster- "it's supposed to be there".
    "Just because nobody complains doesn't mean all parachutes are perfect."

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    98
    Hmm... I think Rodenstock's 6 element 50mm is a 2.8 and has been for a while. Your lens may simply not be up to 8x and 10x enlargements, and the subject motion is simply exacerbating that. You should see if you can beg/borrow a more expensive lens and see if that does better in 8x10s.

  10. #30
    Alex Hawley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Kansas, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,895
    Images
    63
    Hi Stephen,
    A Canon F-1 and its FD lenses are as good as one can hope for without obsessive and massive spending. No reason why one cannot get good 8x10s or 11x14s with that equipment and Good Ol' Tri-X. As others have said though, expectations are subjective and you may be at the point where you feel you need better. Having crossed this bridge myself a couple years ago, my recommendation is to go directly to large format. I found the investment is quite less than one would suspect. I wouldn't get rid of the F-1 though. Its too good a camera to part with unless one just has to have the money it would bring. And the only downside to LF is that you can't hang the camera around your neck and peel off that quick shot. Both of these attachments were shot on 35mm Tri-x, spur of the moment, and enlarged easily to 11x14. The 8x10 camera was still in the truck, no possibility of getting it set up for these.
    Semper Fi & God Bless America
    My Photography Blog

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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