Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,274   Posts: 1,660,858   Online: 901
      
Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 115
  1. #61
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,646
    I have never really been personally happy with the prints I can get from 35mm larger than 8x10, and sometimes not even at 8x10. Sure, I've seen some that I do like. YMMV greatly, of course. It's certainly EASIER to get technically excellent prints from a larger negative, at least for me.

  2. #62
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,805
    Images
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    I have never really been personally happy with the prints I can get from 35mm larger than 8x10, and sometimes not even at 8x10. Sure, I've seen some that I do like. YMMV greatly, of course. It's certainly EASIER to get technically excellent prints from a larger negative, at least for me.
    It wasn't until I started paying attention to how the paper I use (Ilford Multigrade IV, which will be replaced with the new Classic when I run out), in combination with the paper developer (Ethol LPD), has certain characteristics, and that I could work with my film processing and exposure to suit those characteristics, that I was able to start making convincing large prints from 35mm negatives. The need to embrace the process as a system, where all of the pieces fit together like a puzzle, is imminently important here.
    I can't take one of my older 35mm negatives and make a print that is convincing to me. Has to be a newer negative with much attention paid to getting the most out of the whole system. I'm not saying you're not doing this, and our tastes are obviously not the same, Roger - I'm just trying to make sure my approach is well understood.

    If the OP is shooting slides, a lot of this becomes pointless, and size of the film, if viewed as an object in itself, is of course incredibly important, same as we would choose paper size to accommodate the print size we prefer.
    "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. #63
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,985
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    The need to embrace the process as a system, where all of the pieces fit together like a puzzle, is imminently important here.
    This is something that took me a long time to get.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  4. #64

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,194
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    7
    Fearing to offend or re offend I read thought the post and in the end no matter what anyone says the area of a 645 is nearly 4x 35mm. I have printed formats from Minox to 11x14 contact prints. To imply or plead that a smaller negative can do the work of a larger negative is kinda silly. It comes down to the look one is seeking along with time and economic constraints. OP test the 645 waters. Someone mentioned a 1950's Zeiss Netar plus one from me it was outstanding if you were good at guessing focus. Not knowing OP finance I simply made recommendation benefiting my personal 20-20 hindsite on foolhardy purchases based on current prices of once top shelf equipment. Hope you do good work with whatever camera and format you may step up to.

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    San Rafael, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    55
    Lots of good suggestions. Mine would be to go for a Mamiya 645 1000. There are lots of them around, meaning lot's of lenses and other stuff too. They have eye level or waist level finders, would fit easily in a carry bag, and are, I find, great to handle. I have 2, plus 2 of the later Pro's, plus 2 of the even later auto focus. All great cameras.

  6. #66
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,857
    Quote Originally Posted by vpwphoto View Post
    Fearing to offend or re offend I read thought the post and in the end no matter what anyone says the area of a 645 is nearly 4x 35mm.
    Actually, it is about 2.7X the area of 135 format.

    135= 24 X 36 = 864 sq.mm (nominal size)
    645= 41.5 X 56 = 2324 sq.mm (Bronica ETR series size-slight variation between makers)

    Approximate area multiple, 135 to 645: 2.69 ---- 2.69 X 864 = 2324 sq.mm


    And for the heck of it, 6X7 relative to 135 and 645:

    6X7= 56 X 67 = 3752 sq.mm (6X7, slight variation between makers)

    Approximate area multiple, 645 to 6X7: 1.61. ---- 1.61 X 2324 = 3741 sq.mm
    Approximate area multiple, 135 to 6X7: 4.35. ---- 4.35 X 864 = 3758 sq.mm
    Last edited by lxdude; 03-08-2014 at 01:49 AM. 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.

  7. #67
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,861
    Images
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Actually, it is about 2.7X the area of 135 format.

    135= 24 X 36 = 864 sq.mm (nominal size)
    645= 41.5 X 56= 2324 sq.mm (Bronica ETR series size-slight variation between makers)

    Approximate area multiple, 135 to 645: 2.69 ---- 2.69 X 864 = 2324 sq.mm
    This is correct, unless you crop the 35mm to the same aspect ratio as the 645.

    In which case, the numbers are:

    135= 24 X 32 = 768 sq.mm (nominal size)
    645= 41.5 X 56= 2324 sq.mm (Bronica ETR series size-slight variation between makers)

    Approximate area multiple, 135 to 645: 3.03 ---- 3.03 X 768 = 2327 sq.mm
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  8. #68
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,857
    A good point, Matt. Thanks for adding that.
    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.

  9. #69
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,985
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    This is correct, unless you crop the 35mm to the same aspect ratio as the 645.

    In which case, the numbers are:

    135= 24 X 32 = 768 sq.mm (nominal size)
    645= 41.5 X 56= 2324 sq.mm (Bronica ETR series size-slight variation between makers)

    Approximate area multiple, 135 to 645: 3.03 ---- 3.03 X 768 = 2327 sq.mm
    Or more practical yet 8x10, 16x20

    135: 24x30=720 vs 645 (720/2152=0.334 or 1/3rd) vs 6x7 (720/3591=0.200 or 1/5th)
    645: 41.5x51.875=2152 vs 135 (2152/720=2.988 or 3/1) vs 6x7 (2152/3591=0.599 or 6/10ths)
    6X7: 53.6 X 67 = 3591 vs 135 (3591/720=4.9875) vs 645 (3591/2152=1.66868 or 1-2/3rds)
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  10. #70
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,805
    Images
    300

    Should I go for a 6x4.5 system?

    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    This is correct, unless you crop the 35mm to the same aspect ratio as the 645.

    In which case, the numbers are:

    135= 24 X 32 = 768 sq.mm (nominal size)
    645= 41.5 X 56= 2324 sq.mm (Bronica ETR series size-slight variation between makers)

    Approximate area multiple, 135 to 645: 3.03 ---- 3.03 X 768 = 2327 sq.mm
    Or, you like the aspect ratio of 35mm and crop you 645 negs... Goes both ways.

    I print panoramic pictures from both 35mm and medium format negatives. Here only the long dimension needs to be considered.
    "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