Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,217   Posts: 1,532,130   Online: 1066
      
Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 118
  1. #61
    Pioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    983
    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.

  2. #62
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,213
    Images
    296
    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

  3. #63

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Africa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    458
    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.

  4. #64
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,654
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    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.
    Your preference of style is a perfectly good reason to stick with 35mm and I believe is puts you in a rare class. "A person who knows exactly what they are trying to get and how to get it." In a sense you have a fully developed business plan.

    The biggest problems most of us have in picking formats, camera systems, lenses, viewfinders, films and developers, papers, toning, etcetera, is that we don't all know where we are going or how to get there.

    I do enjoy HCB's work and Erwitt's and Steve McCurry's.

    But I also find that I truly enjoy prints like Karsh did of O'Keefe, Hurrel's portraits, and Phil Borges' work. These styles require different tools and a different sensibility.

    Simply switching from prism to waist level finder on my RB changes the way I see the world and the perspective I shoot from. Yeah my F5 can technically do the same thing but I can hardly see the screen at my waist let alone focus.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  5. #65
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,213
    Images
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Your preference of style is a perfectly good reason to stick with 35mm and I believe is puts you in a rare class. "A person who knows exactly what they are trying to get and how to get it." In a sense you have a fully developed business plan.

    The biggest problems most of us have in picking formats, camera systems, lenses, viewfinders, films and developers, papers, toning, etcetera, is that we don't all know where we are going or how to get there.

    I do enjoy HCB's work and Erwitt's and Steve McCurry's.

    But I also find that I truly enjoy prints like Karsh did of O'Keefe, Hurrel's portraits, and Phil Borges' work. These styles require different tools and a different sensibility.

    Simply switching from prism to waist level finder on my RB changes the way I see the world and the perspective I shoot from. Yeah my F5 can technically do the same thing but I can hardly see the screen at my waist let alone focus.
    Yes, indeed. Except I am not as confident in my 'style' as you think...

    Gotta pick a camera that suits how we work and what we're trying to accomplish. I like shooting landscape with my Hasselblad, because I can use a waist level finder or a 45 degree prism to get really close to the ground, which is how I like to shoot landscapes. And I like the square format a lot. Plus the Hasselblad sits VERY sturdily on the built-in swivel ball mount of my Berlebach tripod. I don't need a tripod head, so it sits very low and is sturdy even in very high wind, also due to the compact size of the camera. Perfect for me.

    The 35mm is a great choice for almost everything else, because I shoot a lot of hand held where I can just hold the camera up to my eye and fire away. For portraits I try to use an SLR with super precise focusing, and everything else that is more casual, around town, street photography, and so on, is done with a rangefinder.
    None of those decisions regarding film format has anything to do with print quality. The quality is, for my taste buds, more than good enough from 35mm to shoot landscape and print big. If my 35mm cameras would lower close to the ground as easily as the Hasselblad, and would shoot square photographs, I would just as happily use them for landscape photography.

    But that doesn't mean I won't use the Hasselblad for portraits (I have one series where I wanted to get out of my comfort zone and used it exclusively for a range of portraits), and I have shot a fair bit of landscape with 35mm, just to prove a point to myself that it can indeed be done.

    But anyway, I think the discussion surrounding print quality sometimes gets absurd. While it's true that a larger negative will give a print that is possibly more lifelike with smoother transitions of tone, and more well defined edges, a photograph is always a manipulation of reality, so it's better to aim for what we think the photograph should look like. I think we have to try to figure that out first and then choose the tools to accomplish that. But it also has to fit the method with which we photograph. That compromise is often hard to negotiate.

    Back on topic, a 645 rangefinder is a fun camera to use and great for walking around. If you find one that takes 220 film you can shoot Portra and have over 30 frames per roll, which is exciting if you enjoy the larger negatives. The longer lenses will, however, be more difficult to negotiate in dim lighting, in combination with the smaller maximum apertures. Some of that can be remedied by shooting Delta 3200 for example, or Portra 800, or even Provia 400 pushed a stop if you can find it...
    Last edited by Thomas Bertilsson; 03-06-2014 at 08:15 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    "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

  6. #66

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    321
    The GF670 is expensive for what it is, and I'd totally rather have a GW670 or GW690
    Thanks for the ideas guys, I might pick up either a cheap Pentax or Mamiya 645

  7. #67
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,303
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    434
    I was lucky enough to have a friend loan me a GSW 690 to shoot with. I'm very glad he did, as I THOUGHT I would like it, but after using it I realized it didn't suit my shooting style at all. Do yourself a favor and if possible borrow one of the cameras you're thinking about using, or failing that, buy one from someplace that has a decent return privilege like KEH so you can have time to see if it works for you before you're committed.

  8. #68
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,832
    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.

  9. #69
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,213
    Images
    296
    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

  10. #70
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,654
    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, Ignacio, CO

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



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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