Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,962   Posts: 1,558,323   Online: 1024
      
Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 118
  1. #81
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,109
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltw View Post
    Odd, the perpetual sniggling about 645 frame relative area vs. 135 format. 2.7x vs. 3.0x debates.

    Yet the world turned up its nose to the APS film format, because it was 'too small' and the quality suffered compared to 135 format which is 'merely 2.5x larger than APS'!

    So why does 2.7x area of 645 make it 'not enough of a jump in quality', while 135 reigned supreme over its 2.6x smaller cousin

    Exactly... my point above ^^^ thanks to the rest for rubbing my nose in a numbers game.

    I have been making published images by the thousand. In the pre-digital world. 35mm was fine for newsprint and offset reproduction below 6x9". Glossy large reproduction was the stuff of MF. There is a reason Natl Geographic was photographed exclusively on Kodachrome 25 and 64 for soooo many years. This is a fact. Other coffee table book publishers specified that 35mm was done on Kodachrome, or if faster stock was used you stepped up to a larger format. Do what you want guys... but TO THE OP, 645 is a near quantum leap in "qualities" than 35mm.

    Tom B. I respect your technical abilities... BUT... anything you can do with 35mm will look all the better on 645... not saying in your case 35mm in inferior. <<< not at all. But OP was asking legit question. Cheers.

  2. #82
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,392
    Images
    299
    Tom B. I respect your technical abilities... BUT... anything you can do with 35mm will look all the better on 645... not saying in your case 35mm in inferior. <<< not at all. But OP was asking legit question. Cheers.
    I know very well that surface area has an impact.

    That isn't my point, however.
    If Henri Cartier-Bresson can have 20x24 prints from 35mm negatives hanging in museum and private collections all over the world, then how come it isn't good enough for us?

    I realize 35mm isn't for everything. And I'm not trying to convince the OP to not get a 645. I just get tired of all the tedious norms about not printing bigger than 6x9 from 35mm, when you can see prints much bigger than that, mural size in fact, of Salgado for example, in museums. It just vehemently contradicts the 'norms'.
    "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. #83
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,109
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    Bresson, and Salgado, photograph "journalism".... it is what it is.
    I have a 20x30 from 35mm of a football coach... but it is crunchy looking, and I'd rather it not be so crunchy for that purpose.

    For a fine portrait, still life, landscapes... sometimes ... I like to move on to a larger media.
    And in the pre-digital age the client (right or wrong) REQUIRED IT!!! 35mm need not apply for many jobs.

  4. #84
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,392
    Images
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by vpwphoto View Post
    Bresson, and Salgado, photograph "journalism".... it is what it is.
    I have a 20x30 from 35mm of a football coach... but it is crunchy looking, and I'd rather it not be so crunchy for that purpose.

    For a fine portrait, still life, landscapes... sometimes ... I like to move on to a larger media.
    And in the pre-digital age the client (right or wrong) REQUIRED IT!!! 35mm need not apply for many jobs.
    I have seen lots of product photography. E6 mostly, in the early 2000's. I know what you're talking about. Magazines, posters, etc.

    I just don't agree with it. I respect your opinion, but I very much dislike rules, particularly when it comes to expressive art forms.
    "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

  5. #85
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I know very well that surface area has an impact.

    That isn't my point, however.
    If Henri Cartier-Bresson can have 20x24 prints from 35mm negatives hanging in museum and private collections all over the world, then how come it isn't good enough for us?

    I realize 35mm isn't for everything. And I'm not trying to convince the OP to not get a 645. I just get tired of all the tedious norms about not printing bigger than 6x9 from 35mm, when you can see prints much bigger than that, mural size in fact, of Salgado for example, in museums. It just vehemently contradicts the 'norms'.
    Well, because we aren't Cartier-Bresson. And because we don't all shoot with his style or goals so it isn't just "we don't have his skill" either.

    It would be just as fair to point out that CB's work could have never been done with an 8x10 and say therefore he was lacking as a photographer because if 8x10 was good enough for Ansel (and for Weston for anti-Adams crowd) it should be good enough for CB or us. Horses for courses and all that.

    You can certainly print as large as you like from any format, and the results may be fine for your purposes. Only the photographer can determine that based on their vision. I think we are in agreement. The only reason I waded into this was that someone suggested that 645 was not much of a step up in format size from 35mm and I disagree with that. It's a big jump and I agree with those who say that it makes a bigger difference than the jump from 645 up to 6x7.

  6. #86
    erikg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    pawtucket rhode island usa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,417
    The commercial standards of another era need not apply.

  7. #87
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Or, you like the aspect ratio of 35mm and crop you 645 negs... Goes both ways.
    A good point, too.
    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.

  8. #88
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,109
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    It seems to be a semantics war now.
    "Rules" "Standards"... to me it was "engineering specifications". And to some extent comes down to that.

    Although my 18MP MF camera has an entirely different look than my 18MP DSLR. And it can not be easily replicated with the other.

  9. #89
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,008
    Quote Originally Posted by erikg View Post
    The commercial standards of another era need not apply.
    Those standards were what they were because Kodachrome was so superior to other color films of the day. At one time ad agency preference was for either a 34mm Kodachrome or 8x10 Ektachrome; anything else was seen inferior leaving medium format out completely. That wasn't true for a very long time as E6 films caught up with and surpassed Kodachrome.

  10. #90
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,392
    Images
    299
    No, it's not about semantics. It's about making the box, that we are supposed to think outside, disappear.

    I break norms for a living, find solutions to what others find impossible. So I'm inclined to believe what I can witness with my own eyes.

    Will prints from 645 negs be smoother? Of course! Does it matter? That's for you to decide. I think, for the most part, that it doesn't matter.

    Don't you guys sometimes go against convention and make fun discoveries?
    "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

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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