Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,571   Posts: 1,545,601   Online: 962
      
Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 378910111213141516 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 155
  1. #121
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,306
    Images
    46
    I don't know what's worse, that I can't make up my mind which camera to use or that I just quoted Taylor Swift...

    So to sum up (where's that "print my book" button?)...

    I moved up to 4x5 because I wanted more resolution than I was getting with 35mm Panatomic-X (to my recollection I never shot 35mm 100TMAX). 100TMAX is not advertised as higher resolution than Panatomic-X... But it is advertised as sharper. Over time, I have come to realize what I liked most about the move to 4x5 TMY2 wasn't resolution... It was sharpness.

    So it comes round full circle... Maybe I should have given 35mm 100TMAX a chance in 1987

    I kind of think the problem is I'm not a magic bullet chaser (another one of the words that makes my heart go thump). I pick one thing and stick with it for a really long time. So, encouraged by my friends here, having found that pretty much everything works. I am finally going to give a look at this film to see if it was totally unecessary for me to move to 4x5...

    Thinking out loud, I could use the OM system since that was my "professional" gear, or the Zeiss (since I have a 40.5mm K2 filter for it, the filter I would most likely want).

  2. #122
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    I don't know what's worse, that I can't make up my mind which camera to use or that I just quoted Taylor Swift...

    So to sum up (where's that "print my book" button?)...

    I moved up to 4x5 because I wanted more resolution than I was getting with 35mm Panatomic-X (to my recollection I never shot 35mm 100TMAX). 100TMAX is not advertised as higher resolution than Panatomic-X... But it is advertised as sharper. Over time, I have come to realize what I liked most about the move to 4x5 TMY2 wasn't resolution... It was sharpness.

    So it comes round full circle... Maybe I should have given 35mm 100TMAX a chance in 1987

    I kind of think the problem is I'm not a magic bullet chaser (another one of the words that makes my heart go thump). I pick one thing and stick with it for a really long time. So, encouraged by my friends here, having found that pretty much everything works. I am finally going to give a look at this film to see if it was totally unecessary for me to move to 4x5...

    Thinking out loud, I could use the OM system since that was my "professional" gear, or the Zeiss (since I have a 40.5mm K2 filter for it, the filter I would most likely want).
    There are other reasons to shoot 4x5 - view camera movements, the contemplative nature of view camera work, and tailoring development for each negative come to mind.

    If all I cared about was sharpness/resolution/lack of grain I'd get myself an RB67 system and give up 4x5 for 6x7. Sometimes I get tempted to skip the sheet film hassles and actually do this, but when it comes down to it I just really like working with the big camera. I'd probably like 8x10 even more, but only if I had an 8x10 enlarger. I'm just not going to be content with contact prints and scanning. Heck, with the RB I'd even use the zone system. Just have three backs for normal B&W one, one destined for N development, one for something like N+2 and one for N-2 or so. With modern VC papers that would cover any contrast range I'd be likely to encounter. And if it didn't, I could always devote an entire roll to the odd shot outside the norm, and still not spend more money on it than I would say three bracketed sheets of 4x5.

  3. #123
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,657
    Quote Originally Posted by georg16nik View Post

    Zeiss Camera Lens News No. 17 September 2002 - ...we examined Agfaortho 25, an orthochromatic black & white film from Agfa, featuring enormous resolving power and virtually no grain. Testing this film, we reached beyond 250 lp/mm using Hasselblad cameras with the lenses Zeiss Distagon T* 3,5/60 and Zeiss Superachromat 5,6/250.
    Thanks for that. I was going by memory on several tests from different sources and also wanted to be conservative in my claim. Of course, perfect conditions don't exist in the field, anyway.

    Agfaortho 25 is not an "ordinary" film, but still, very impressive.
    Last edited by lxdude; 10-28-2012 at 09:58 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    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.

  4. #124
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,738
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    So it comes round full circle... Maybe I should have given 35mm 100TMAX a chance in 1987

    I kind of think the problem is I'm not a magic bullet chaser (another one of the words that makes my heart go thump). I pick one thing and stick with it for a really long time. So, encouraged by my friends here, having found that pretty much everything works. I am finally going to give a look at this film to see if it was totally unecessary for me to move to 4x5...
    This is one reason why I don't get hung up on one film.

    As to 4x5 being un-necessary, I think about what my 4x5s have taught me and know I'm truly blessed to have them.
    Last edited by markbarendt; 10-28-2012 at 07:05 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  5. #125
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,306
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    There are other reasons to shoot 4x5 - view camera movements, the contemplative nature of view camera work, and tailoring development for each negative come to mind.
    Looked at "Blue Hole" while writing this (always a pleasure to see your print), so I know there are things you can do (and have done) only with 4x5... No worries Roger, I'll still shoot and appreciate 4x5.

    I never* had problem with lack of movements in 35mm. And I can be contemplative in a crowd.

    Even with roll film I keep development under sensitometric control. I just sacrifice a few frames at the beginning of a roll for a test strip... And I get a curve of what Contrast Index I actually develop that roll to. I find sensitometry just as valuable to know where you are (so you can knowingly develop more or less next time)... as it is to tailor each shot to the specific lighting.

    *Of course there were occasional thoughts of buying a shift lens but I never shelled out for one.

  6. #126
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,338
    Images
    225

    Advantages of MF over 35mm

    As roger and bill were talking about 4x5's and TS lenses, I created this thread because I have TS questions, hope it's ok to Plug this here, if not, someone tell me and I'll delete it.

    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum51/111691-mamiya-rz67-tilt-shift-adapter-lens-vs-4x5-field-camera.html


    ~Stone

    The Important Ones - Canon: AE-1, 1V | Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Mamiya: RZ67 Pro II, 7 II

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  7. #127
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    Looked at "Blue Hole" while writing this (always a pleasure to see your print), so I know there are things you can do (and have done) only with 4x5... No worries Roger, I'll still shoot and appreciate 4x5.

    I never* had problem with lack of movements in 35mm. And I can be contemplative in a crowd.

    Even with roll film I keep development under sensitometric control. I just sacrifice a few frames at the beginning of a roll for a test strip... And I get a curve of what Contrast Index I actually develop that roll to. I find sensitometry just as valuable to know where you are (so you can knowingly develop more or less next time)... as it is to tailor each shot to the specific lighting.

    *Of course there were occasional thoughts of buying a shift lens but I never shelled out for one.
    Oh, that's right - you were in the LF print exchange!

    The print he's referring to is an 11x14 he received from me in this year's Large Format Print Exchange. (It's also on my Flickr page as "Blue Hole2" - I believe I called it "Sun and Blue Hole" or some such for the exchange.) The reason it's 11x14 is that's the largest size the exchange allowed. I don't think it would be nearly as smooth and grainless in 35mm even if shot on slower film, and this was from 4x5 TMY-2. OTOH, I doubt you'd be able to tell that much difference if I'd shot it on 6x7, except that I might have had to stop way down to get the foreground rocks sharp if I couldn't have used the back tilt.

    I like using the big camera. I hate dust and loading film holders. Sometimes it's worth it.

  8. #128

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    683
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Thanks for that. I was going by memory on several tests from different sources and also wanted to be conservative in my claim. Of course, perfect conditions don't exist in the field, anyway.

    Agfaortho 25 is not an "ordinary" film, but still, very impressive.
    Zeiss are doing it in the field not in lab conditions..
    According to the same Zeiss Camera Lens News No. 17 September 2002 published by Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen - Camera Lens Division

    At Zeiss, we use photographic techniques similar to normal pictorial photography including commonly available cameras with Zeiss camera lenses and achieve the same resolving power figures. So the resolving power, as stated by the film manufacturers under lab conditions, is not just of some theoretical value, but it can be achieved and utilized in real world photography.
    As we keep testing new film types as they appear on the market in order to find those that are best capable of recording the rich details that can be imaged with Zeiss lenses, we find a trend among the leading film manufacturers towards higher resolving powers combined with increasing film speed. Today, it is possible to resolve 150 lp/mm with 160 ISO color negative films. In black & white, the same resolution can now be had at a speed level of 400 ISO!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    ....
    So it comes round full circle... Maybe I should have given 35mm 100TMAX a chance in 1987
    ...
    According to Zeiss Camera Lens News No. 19 March 2003., in tests conducted by Kornelius Mueller of Carl Zeiss, T-max 100 was capable of 180 lp/mm. Error margin +/- 10 line pairs per millimeter.

  9. #129
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    That we are comparing 20 square inches of pretty sharp film to one or a couple square inches of really sharp film is something to consider. Inch for inch my 4x5 may not produce the same sharpness as a really good 35 set up, but then again, it doesn't really have to. With my 4x5 or 8x10 if I'm doing things right I don't need to think about sharpness, and I get to concentrate on other things that are more important to me than eeking out everything I can get from an emulsion.

  10. #130
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,289
    Images
    301

    Advantages of MF over 35mm

    Quote Originally Posted by JBrunner View Post
    That we are comparing 20 square inches of pretty sharp film to one or a couple square inches of really sharp film is something to consider. Inch for inch my 4x5 may not produce the same sharpness as a really good 35 set up, but then again, it doesn't really have to. With my 4x5 or 8x10 if I'm doing things right I don't need to think about sharpness, and I get to concentrate on other things that are more important to me than eeking out everything I can get from an emulsion.
    Jason,

    I fully understand your view. For me, it isn't difficult to get satisfying print quality from any format, and while I am discerning about print quality, none of the extra work is ever allowed to stand in the way of making the picture.

    Additionally, I feel that I end up with better prints from 35mm often, because the small negative makes me work harder, and in my opinion it shows in the prints.

    I do like putting a 4x5 negative in the enlarger, however, but I do not enjoy spotting the print, something I rarely have to do with 35mm, even in 16x20 prints.
    "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



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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