Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,829   Posts: 1,582,226   Online: 1032
      
Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 111
  1. #61
    Prest_400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by Nuff View Post
    I agree, I carry my pentax mx with me everywhere and I'm still on frame 16. If it was MF, I would be able to see the photos already. But then, if it was MF I wouldn't take it with me everyday on my commute to work.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I have no problem burning off a roll of 35mm in 15 minutes if I'm in the groove shooting portraits. But at the same time my Pentax KX has had a roll of Cine Still C-41 film in it since February, and I'm on frame 20. I don't see what the hurry is either, though. It's a nice game of patience.
    Perhaps that's what I should do, take the OM1 more with me.
    Ever since I got it, I just tend to take a camera when I predict something interesting in the day or just take it with a thought of shooting in mind. Also known as, take it for a project when you shoot for it.
    This is why I thought a lot about MF, as I do a take it as needed basis. I like to plan things but in reality sometimes it makes matters worse.

    I never liked hurrying shooting, I might get in a groove and burn half a roll easily (event, travel) but I self-limit myself. Specially because I end shooting meaningless stuff. However, portraits might be a different thing, and a worthy one.

  2. #62
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    I've been everywhere ooooohhh yeaahhhh still I'm standing tall.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,688

    It's hip to be a square peg

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    Thomas, you're good at burning thoughts into people's heads...

    You were saying something about using the right camera for the task at hand... And then there's using the camera you have with you...

    I revel in the idea of using the Wrong Camera for the Job, it's part of the joy of photography for me... So I'll take landscapes with a Kodak Pocket Instamatic and I'll go to Disneyland and take family snapshots with 4x5. It's a wonderful feeling to do less with more, or more with less. Just messing around with quality is so much fun.
    I do that too...maybe some time I'll use my Zero Image pinhole for portraits, or even street photography
    "He took to writing poetry and visiting the elves: and though many shook their heads and touched their foreheads and said 'Poor old Baggins!' and though few believed any of his tales, he remained very happy till the end of his days, and those were extraordinarily long "- JRR Tolkien, ' The Hobbit '.

  3. #63
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,556
    Images
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    I revel in the idea of using the Wrong Camera for the Job, it's part of the joy of photography for me... So I'll take landscapes with a Kodak Pocket Instamatic and I'll go to Disneyland and take family snapshots with 4x5. It's a wonderful feeling to do less with more, or more with less. Just messing around with quality is so much fun.
    I shot landscape with 35mm Tri-X for an entire year, just to prove to myself that I could make nice photographs with it. And I did (I think, anyway). They are different from what I get with the Hasselblad, but not less worthy in my opinion.

    What using the 'wrong' camera for the job brings out is creativity and thinking about what we do, to pay attention to what's important. I have always thought that it's essential to bring back the mood and feel of a place, and while detail and resolution can be nice, it just isn't that important. Do I think that enlargements from 6x6 look nicer than those from 35mm? No. I think they look different. The grain of 35mm brings something to the photographs in the same way the lack of grain can bring something, and sometimes the lack of detail lends a beautiful quality too.

    It's much nicer to focus on the positive aspects of a photographic print than it is to focus on the negative aspects, but it's much more difficult to do. To pay attention to what we actually DO get, irrespective of what camera was used, should be our prime concern, not whining about wishing we had a camera that makes a bigger negative. Just get on with it and make beautiful prints, and have a good time doing so!

    For those who are concerned with quality from 35mm, try TMax 100 some time, and process in Kodak Xtol for a sharp but extremely fine grain negative, and then print it big. When I do 16x20 prints from such negatives, (cropped to fit an aspect ratio of about 2:3), I am always flabbergasted and can't really understand what it is that folks have against it. Smooth beautiful transitions of tone, sharp detail, and the little bit of grain that's there lends a gorgeous texture, kind of like how FP4+ would from 6x7 negs. Obviously it isn't as smooth as 6x7 or 4x5, but it is really really good.
    Then if you want more texture, just pop a roll of TMax 400 in and prepare to be amazed again, for it is a mighty fine film too. And then you can go bonkers and shoot Delta 3200. Use Rodinal for good measure, and when you enlarge big you will be very surprised at the detail you can get behind all that gorgeous grain. It's a very wide spectrum of results that are available from that tiny little negative.
    "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

  4. #64
    Jaf-Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by Snapshot View Post
    ...because now I don't use my 35mm equipment much anymore and I spent a fortune on it. I'm spoiled on the relative image quality of MF. Now, I better avoid looking at that 4x5 camera I saw the other day, otherwise I might be writing a "I Hate Large Format..." thread in the near future. Anyone else have a similar experience?
    I tend to oscillate between the two.

    MF is clearly superior in image quality and MF cameras are more fun to shoot. I also like the fact that I can finish a MF roll a lot quicker than 35mm. I'm not awfully patient.

    But, if you use the right film, the right equipment and the right developing technique, 35mm will give you beautiful images.

    Film grain can be beautiful and 35mm is better for showing it off.

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    333
    I have to agree about the beauty of grain. I have some flower 'portraits' from velvia 50 shot on 35mm and enlarged to 12"x16" on my wall, the grain is there but it gives a wonderful look to the image. I have similar ones next to them on my wall shot with 6x7 velvia, they are 'sharper' and show almost no grain, but I wouldn't say they are better, just different. I am constantly amazed by the quality you can get from 35mm when treated right.

  6. #66

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,286
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    I revel in the idea of using the Wrong Camera for the Job, it's part of the joy of photography for me... So I'll take landscapes with a Kodak Pocket Instamatic and I'll go to Disneyland and take family snapshots with 4x5. It's a wonderful feeling to do less with more, or more with less. Just messing around with quality is so much fun.
    Amen. Maybe it's an engineering trait for me---the irresistible urge to say "Let's see what *this* tool will do!"

    There are, obviously, people among us who do their best work with a single system with which they're intimately familiar, and others who thrive on mixing and matching tools with tasks, often in whimsical, unexpected, or Officially Not Approved ways. I think it's genetic, frankly.

    I'm standing in my office as I write this (yeah, yeah, shut up, I'll get some work done in a minute), looking at a handful of prints I've chosen to bring in. In each case, I have a really strong association between the image and the tools I used to make it. To the viewer I suppose it's just a 5x7 black and white print of a sliced melon; to me it's all tied up with the texture of the wood of my 5x7, the fiddliness of getting that old Rapid Rectilinear into the front of a modern shutter that isn't *quite* the right size, the cheap easel I misuse as a contact frame, the undying magic of seeing the print come up in the tray of Dektol, and so on.

    I'm not quite sure what it would feel like to create something and not have that messy web of associations with it, though I'm aware intellectually that there are people who do good work that way.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  7. #67

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo.
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Snapshot View Post
    ...because now I don't use my 35mm equipment much anymore and I spent a fortune on it. I'm spoiled on the relative image quality of MF. Now, I better avoid looking at that 4x5 camera I saw the other day, otherwise I might be writing a "I Hate Large Format..." thread in the near future. Anyone else have a similar experience?
    I was like you. After I started shooting medium format my Contax cameras and Zeiss lenses just sat in the bag. I eventually tried large format and sold all my 35mm gear (except for a Stereo Realist) to help fund the large format.

    Right now I own an 8x10 camera with both 8x10 back and 4x5 reduction back and my Hasselblad doesn't get much use. I use digital cameras for sports, Ebay, and snapshots.

    There is nothing wrong with shooting 35mm but if you don't use your gear then I suggest sell it and put the money towards something you will use. That's what I did.

  8. #68

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaf-Photo View Post
    I tend to oscillate between the two.

    MF is clearly superior in image quality and MF cameras are more fun to shoot. I also like the fact that I can finish a MF roll a lot quicker than 35mm. I'm not awfully patient.

    But, if you use the right film, the right equipment and the right developing technique, 35mm will give you beautiful images.

    Film grain can be beautiful and 35mm is better for showing it off.
    Last year I was given a Nikon Coolpix 995. This was a $1000 camera in 2001; 3.2 megapixels (!).
    When I point it at beautiful things, it gives me beautiful pictures.

  9. #69
    Jaf-Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Last year I was given a Nikon Coolpix 995. This was a $1000 camera in 2001; 3.2 megapixels (!).
    When I point it at beautiful things, it gives me beautiful pictures.
    Possibly, but I think film grain looks prettier than digital noise. Or in the case of a 3.2 Mp camera, digital blur.

    And, unfortunately, I have seen a lot of failed and technically flawed pictures of "beautiful things". And vice versa.

    If you take a jpeg of Tom Waits in the glaring sun with your 3.2Mp Nikon Coolpics, it probably won't look anything like art. But if Corbijn does it with Tri-X in a Hasselblad and lith prints it, it will.

    So the assumed point that the medium is unimportant in photography, doesn't quite hold up.
    Last edited by Jaf-Photo; 05-02-2014 at 05:24 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #70

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaf-Photo View Post
    Possibly, but I think film grain looks prettier than digital noise. Or in the case of a 3.2 Mp camera, digital blur.

    And, unfortunately, I have seen a lot of failed and technically flawed pictures of "beautiful things". And vice versa.

    If you take a jpeg of Tom Waits in the glaring sun with your 3.2Mp Nikon Coolpics, it probably won't look anything like art. But if Corbijn does it with Tri-X in a Hasselblad and lith prints it, it will.

    So the assumed point that the medium is unimportant in photography, doesn't quite hold up.
    Sorry if that assumption came through, it wasn't made on my end.
    Use the format that best matches the subject material; I could care less about photos of Mr Waits, but I certianly wouldn't use the Coolpix for, say, architectural subjects - especially since I have a perfectly good 8x10 for that stuff.
    As for digital noise and blur, the Nikon surprised me by being rather quiet - 3.2mp is a roadblock for sure, so is one and a half square inches of 35mm film. You can't get past either of them. The little Nikon also does well for closeups. When I first took it out to play with, I filled a memory card with a series of flower photos that really surprised and pleased me. I should do another series with printing (smallish prints) in mind, just to show what can be done with what is now regarded as a real POS camera .



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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