Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,984   Posts: 1,633,039   Online: 882
      
Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 115
  1. #51
    fretlessdavis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Southern AZ
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    314
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Well, if you stated these things as your opinion it would be a lot easier to digest. In my world 35mm is by far the best allround format, because up to 16x20" print size I get such good print quality that it doesn't really matter. I don't need anything better. Can you see finer grain and slightly smoother tonal transitions? Sure! Does that make it better? Well, that's a matter of taste, isn't it...
    Sorry. I didn't mean to come off like an ass. I assumed it would be taken as my opinion.

    645 can be small, handheld, and is pretty streamlined. You spend less time changing backs or inserts, and film economy is pretty high. If you print rectangles, you don't waste film real estate. Weight isn't a ton less than other MF systems, but it is less, and a bit more compact.

    For me, I start to see a level of grittiness up close that I don't like when I push 35mm past 8x10, and for detailed landscapes, I've found 645 the smallest format for acceptable smoothness and microdetail. My wallet hurts less when I want to bracket on 645, than if I did on anything bigger.

    Yes, my technical quality would be better using my 4x5, but I can't handhold that, and it's big, heavy, and requires more accessories.

    Yes, I'd have even more economy, a lighter and smaller kit, and even more hand-hold-ability by using 35mm, but I find the negatives a bit too small.

    /opinion

    that better for you?
    New-ish convert to film.
    Pentax MX for 35mm
    Bronica ETRS for 645

  2. #52
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,755
    Images
    294
    Quote Originally Posted by fretlessdavis View Post
    Sorry. I didn't mean to come off like an ass. I assumed it would be taken as my opinion.

    645 can be small, handheld, and is pretty streamlined. You spend less time changing backs or inserts, and film economy is pretty high. If you print rectangles, you don't waste film real estate. Weight isn't a ton less than other MF systems, but it is less, and a bit more compact.

    For me, I start to see a level of grittiness up close that I don't like when I push 35mm past 8x10, and for detailed landscapes, I've found 645 the smallest format for acceptable smoothness and microdetail. My wallet hurts less when I want to bracket on 645, than if I did on anything bigger.

    Yes, my technical quality would be better using my 4x5, but I can't handhold that, and it's big, heavy, and requires more accessories.

    Yes, I'd have even more economy, a lighter and smaller kit, and even more hand-hold-ability by using 35mm, but I find the negatives a bit too small.

    /opinion

    that better for you?

    Much better. And fair even!

    But you can hand hold a 4x5, particularly a Graflex SLR or something like a Speed Graphic.

    For a while I owned a Mamiya 645 and I've had Fuji 645 rangefinders - both cameras were fantastic, and I love the prints I get from the negatives. It's just that for the most part I couldn't shoot the way I wanted to. 35mm allows me the freedom to shoot in very difficult lighting (which I enjoy), and somehow I really enjoy that beautiful grain when I make big prints from ISO 400 film, or even something like Delta 3200 looks incredible at 20x24.

    I guess it takes all kinds. Thinking back to the original topic - awesome chromes - at 6x7 those things really come into their own as objects to just behold on a light table, which is my favorite way to look at them, exploring them with a good piece of glass.
    "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

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    162
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    Hardly. Have you ever used a H*A*S*S*E*L*B*L*A*D at 6x6? Now that will really blow your mind, as opposed to a GF670 virtual slightly bend your mind.
    Well, have you ever seen a photo/negative from the GF670? Why don't you show us some of your photos taken with your ultra-Hasselblad and your über-Zeiss lenses that clearly show their superiority over everything else. 12,450 posts of which many seem to boil down to "Hasselblad is the answer to all your photographic needs/questions/problems" and "square is the perfect negative shape". But not a single photo to be seen.
    Last edited by spijker; 03-05-2014 at 07:30 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #54
    fretlessdavis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Southern AZ
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    314
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Much better. And fair even!

    But you can hand hold a 4x5, particularly a Graflex SLR or something like a Speed Graphic.

    For a while I owned a Mamiya 645 and I've had Fuji 645 rangefinders - both cameras were fantastic, and I love the prints I get from the negatives. It's just that for the most part I couldn't shoot the way I wanted to. 35mm allows me the freedom to shoot in very difficult lighting (which I enjoy), and somehow I really enjoy that beautiful grain when I make big prints from ISO 400 film, or even something like Delta 3200 looks incredible at 20x24.

    I guess it takes all kinds. Thinking back to the original topic - awesome chromes - at 6x7 those things really come into their own as objects to just behold on a light table, which is my favorite way to look at them, exploring them with a good piece of glass.
    Going to have to try handholding by B&J Press Camera once I recalibrate the Kalart (and clean the fungus). I have shaky hands, so I don't know how it'll go, but it should be sweet.

    I spend a lot of time backpacking. For the landscape type stuff I do (not big scenics, usually cool rocks and formations), I just could't get the textures I want out of 35mm-- I spent a lot of time with Nikon, Pentax, FP4, Delta, and all kinds of things to get better detail. I had an 'AHA!' moment as soon as I tried MF. I considered a Pentax 6x7, Century Graphic, RB67, and sticking with 4x5. Basically, my conclusion was, that I could use a 645 rig for everything I do, so I wouldn't have to stock multiple systems. I'm down to nothing but 645 and 4x5 now.

    If I had to do it over again, I'd probably get the GA645zi-- And will still probably snag one, soon!
    New-ish convert to film.
    Pentax MX for 35mm
    Bronica ETRS for 645

  5. #55
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,552

    Should I go for a 6x4.5 system?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Here we go again. 645 or any other format is not better than 35mm. It is different.
    Better in terms of grain, resolution etc. but if you want a grainy look, no. If you miss the photo you would have gotten with 35mm because your 645 was too big to bring along or lacked the right lens etc. then 35mm would have been better.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #56
    RattyMouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,520
    Images
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    Hardly. Have you ever used a H*A*S*S*E*L*B*L*A*D at 6x6? Now that will really blow your mind, as opposed to a GF670 virtual slightly bend your mind.
    My GF670 fits in perfectly inside my jacket pocket. That to me, is mind blowing. Medium format, 6 x 7 no less, in my pocket.

  7. #57
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,920
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    Better in terms of grain, resolution etc. but if you want a grainy look, no. If you miss the photo you would have gotten with 35mm because your 645 was too big to bring along or lacked the right lens etc. then 35mm would have been better.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I think what Thomas is getting at is that "better" and "worse" are not good words to use to describe formats, films, developers.....

    More or less might be better, finer/courser, .....

    Do you like big tomatoes or small?
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  8. #58
    Pioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,305
    Images
    4
    I do enjoy my GF670 without a doubt, but I guess I will have to go find a working Hasselblad system with an 80mm to see if there is any difference. I kinda have my doubts but I can't say until I try.
    Dan

    The simplest tools can be the hardest to master.

  9. #59
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,755
    Images
    294
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    I think what Thomas is getting at is that "better" and "worse" are not good words to use to describe formats, films, developers.....

    More or less might be better, finer/courser, .....

    Do you like big tomatoes or small?
    Yep. Exactly.

    And for the record, resolution is a number game where with medium format often the lens is the limitation, while in 35mm it's the film. The end result is that 35mm can have as good resolution as 645.
    But I hate numbers.

    My appreciation for 35mm goes way beyond any numbers and has to do with the final look of the prints. All of the established yack about grain and such isn't even a consideration for me.
    I'm thinking of treasures such as Ralph Gibson and Elliot Erwitt, a caliber to aspire to, and they survived just fine with 35mm. I'm naturally drawn to 35mm work when I go to museums.

    The only time I appreciate larger film is with slides. An 8x10 chrome is just amazingly cool to behold.
    "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

  10. #60

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Africa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    460
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I'm thinking of treasures such as Ralph Gibson and Elliot Erwitt, a caliber to aspire to, and they survived just fine with 35mm. I'm naturally drawn to 35mm work when I go to museums.
    Add to that WHEN they used 35 mm, and consider that we nowadays have materials and equipment that are more capable than what those guys had. I have seen fantastic prints from 35 mm, both chromes and black and white, 20 x 30 inches, totally convincing in terms of quality. So although I might struggle to produce that quality consistently, I do believe that it is possible. Actually, we have no excuses in terms of available materials and equipment.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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