Originally Posted by Markok765
I have a 6 element 80mm Schneider and a 4 element 50mm Nikon but for sake of comparison assume equal quality lens.
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
I've read your books and I know you could tell at a glance. It's the second half of your first sentence that gives me food for thought.
Originally Posted by Dave Miller
I put some 12" x 16" mono prints in frames behind glass in pub/restaurant gallery last month. They were from MF negs and in the not very good light I felt the quality didn't show, and other venues I can use for display eg library, visitor centre also don't have good light. Of course in a good quality venue quality (or not) of printing would be easier to see but I'm a long way from using that sort of display area.
Originally Posted by Markok765
It doesn't help people (or your credibility) for you to give out misinformation. I have two 75mm f:4.5 enlarging lenses, one made in Japan for Omega (Omicron-EL), and another from Isco in Germany. This wasn't too uncommon a focal length for 6x6 enlargers at one time.
A 12 x 16 image from Delta 400 or 100 ( or Kodak T Max films )
is well within the reach of a competent photographer. It isn't THAT hard, and lots of folks can do it.
Can you tell the difference between prints made in MF and 35, side by side ? Well, sure. Does that make the 35mm image inferior ? Of course not. Does that make MF superior ? No.
Here's the unspoken reality: you can make superb images from 35 in conditions that are impossible to make ANY image from MF.
When and where you make pictures is the real question.
Sunny days on a tripod, MF.
Handheld at twilight, 35mm.
In between, that's up to you.
Conventional thinking is usually misleading.
Every morning, I make a couple pictures in a wooded glen
a couple miles from my home. I use a 35mm camera and 400 film.
All wrong, according to those who preach only viewcameras are correct
for nature pictures.
Every morning, I catch fleeting sunlight in the forest
when I stop my bicycle for a moment
to soak up the splendid moment
before resuming my 30 mile ride.
I shoot at 1/30 @ f/1.4.
With a 645 camera, that's 1/8 @ f/2.8,
which is impossible without a tripod.
Lazy me, I pack the 35.
It's all up to you.
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I must gently disagree with Roger over the question of degree of enlargement, whilst excepting that it is a very personal call. I am not generally a lover of visible grain, or poor definition in a print, although I accept that occasionally it can add to an image. I have, within my own small collection, prints ranging from 5 x 4 and 10 x 8 contacts through to 16 x 12 printed made from 35mm, and do not feel that any of them could be described as oversized. Remember that a larger print is intended for a greater viewing distance, and it’s only us fanatics that rub nose-grease on them. Content, must always be given greater weight than technique, the latter being easily learnt, but putting passion into a picture is a precious gift few of us possess, certainly not I.
However, in many ways your question is irrelevant since you should be trying to satisfy yourself and not the gallery visitors. I rather get the impression that you want us to provide the excuse for you to embark on the purchase of MF goodies, but that must come from within.
[QUOTE=Dave Miller]I must gently disagree with Roger over the question of degree of enlargement, whilst excepting that it is a very personal call. [QUOTE]
My real problem is with the half-tone effect. Up to 3-5x (depending on film, dev, etc) you can get that lovely liquid tonality that is reminiscent of a contact print. Then tonality generally collapses between 4x and 8x, because you can see the grain in some tones and not others -- and when I say 'see', I don't necessarily mean you're even conscious of it, just that the tonality changes. Blow it up still more and the tonality improves again at something between 6x and 10x, when the grain is everywhere. To me, tonality overrides just about everything: grain, sharpness and (above all) bokeh, which I notice only when it's REALLY bad.
But as you say, it's a very personal matter, and in any case, it's like the theoretical question on another thread about optimum apertures. Use 'em if you can; stick to your prejudices/preconceptions wherever possible; but if you can get a better picture another way (or if this is the only way to get a picture), throw all that to the wind.
To me an 11x14 from 6x4.5 looks like a 5x7 from 35mm. I'm not sure about doing things the MF way. Fuji makes an autofocus little 645 that must be closer to a point and shoot then to some of the big 35mm when it comes to technique.
But everything has it's place. Use what works for you and ignore us -)
I thought for a minute I was going insane. I answered this thread already today, and it doesn't show up. The same thread appears on 35mm forum and medium format forum too. I answered the thread on 35mm forum.
1. size matters. always.
2. When in doubt, see point #1.
"I'm still developing"
Originally Posted by ricksplace
You can't find it because Jeff is running the same thread in 2 different threads, in the medium format and the 35mm forums. It has gotten a bit confusing with people participating in one or the other.
Here is the other thread: