Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,042   Posts: 1,560,734   Online: 1126
      
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Chorley, Lancashire, England
    Posts
    129

    Prime lens quality and 12" x 16" enlargements.

    Using a prime lens on 35mm and taking all the care normally associated with MF eg use tripod etc, would most people be able to differentiate an enlargement to 12" x 16" from say Delta 100 on 35mm and 4.5cm x 6cm negatives? And would a 35mm Delta 100 negative produce as good a result as MF on Delta 400? I assume that an expert could see a difference but would a viewer in a gallery be able to differentiate when the prints were mounted behind glass?
    If anyone has practical experience around this question your advice would be appreciated because I am in a dilema whether to invest in primes for my 35mm or expand my MF kit.
    PS at the moment I have a 75mm Bronica PE lens and I would get Minolta primes.
    Thanks

    Jeff

  2. #2
    Markok765's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,270
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    24
    You have to remember the quality of the enlarger lenses, or use the 80 or 90mm and, push the enlarger up more,
    Marko Kovacevic
    Blog
    Youtube

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Chorley, Lancashire, England
    Posts
    129
    Thanks
    Assume 50mm and 75mm 6 element enlarging lenses.
    Jeff

  4. #4
    Markok765's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,270
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    24
    They still could be diffrent, BTW, there is no 75mm enlarging lens, but it still would be differnt, even from the same makers.the 800 would have to cover 6x6 so would be diffrent than the 50mm which has to cover a smaller format
    Marko Kovacevic
    Blog
    Youtube

  5. #5
    Amund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Oslo,Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    902
    Images
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Markok765
    You have to remember the quality of the enlarger lenses, or use the 80 or 90mm and, push the enlarger up more,
    Marko, your answer isn`t even remotely relevant to his question....


    I`d take 645 Tri-X negs over 35mm Delta 100 any day. A 12x16 from 645 is enlarged three times less than the 35mm neg, and finer grain can`t make up for that IMO....
    Amund
    __________________________________________
    -Digital is nice but film is like having sex with light-

  6. #6
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by chorleyjeff
    PS at the moment I have a 75mm Bronica PE lens and I would get Minolta primes.
    The 75mm Zenzanon PE lens is wonderfully sharp, and only very few prime lenses for 35mm can produce better resolution on film even in perfect conditions. Then taking the enlargement factor into account, the only way you can get a sharper 12x16" print is by using an even bigger film. Say a 12x16" camera...
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  7. #7
    Amund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Oslo,Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    902
    Images
    68
    I`ll second the sharpness of the 75mm PE. It`S very sharp.
    I recently had a Hasselblad with the 80mm Planar C T*, and the PE is at least as sharp, if not even sharper...
    Amund
    __________________________________________
    -Digital is nice but film is like having sex with light-

  8. #8

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Dear Jeff,

    Yes, I think most photographers would be able to see the difference and tell you what it was, while most non-photographers would see the difference and not be able to tell you.

    My personal view is that 12x16 is over-enlarged from 645 (7x), never mind 35mm (12.5x); I'd want at least 6x7cm (5.6x), even with Delta 100, and possibly 4x5 inch (a bit over 3x).

    Then again, I like small prints.

    Cheers,

    Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

  9. #9
    Dave Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Middle England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,894
    Images
    2
    You would be able to tell the difference, and certainly by direct comparision. Developer choice could make as much difference as that between 35mm, and 4.5 x 6. I doubt that your average punter would have a clue what they were taken with, or printed on. Gallery people are generally more interested in who took it rather than print quality.
    Regards Dave.

    An English Eye


  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Miller
    Gallery people are generally more interested in who took it rather than print quality.
    Amen

    R.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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