Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,570   Posts: 1,621,851   Online: 936
      
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 49 of 49
  1. #41
    darkosaric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,205
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Those are good prints! And they show your point exactly .

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    114
    In my opinion, it's all about the way the image is rendered across the frame. 35mm has a certain character that is just different than that of any other format. Because of the way the larger film area has a way of reinterpreting which focal length is normal, they aren't really comparable.

    To be frank, I expect excellent quality from whichever format I'm choosing.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Warwickshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,241
    I was thinking about this thread on my way home. I remember seeing that Galen Rowell photo of the rainbow over a Tibetan Palace and the print was quite big. Likewise, the Don McCullin photo of the soldier throwing a grenade, some Steve McCurry portraits, and some huge Salgado prints shown outdoors in Lisbon. I think all of them came from 35mm film and were printed as wide as my shoulders. Timing, light and composition seemed to be what made them special, I didn't put my nose next to the prints to check for grain.
    Steve.

  4. #44
    RattyMouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,474
    Images
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by perkeleellinen View Post
    I was thinking about this thread on my way home. I remember seeing that Galen Rowell photo of the rainbow over a Tibetan Palace and the print was quite big. Likewise, the Don McCullin photo of the soldier throwing a grenade, some Steve McCurry portraits, and some huge Salgado prints shown outdoors in Lisbon. I think all of them came from 35mm film and were printed as wide as my shoulders. Timing, light and composition seemed to be what made them special, I didn't put my nose next to the prints to check for grain.
    I agree. By sheer coincidence I bought a Nikon FM2, which is the camera Steve McCurry used to photograph Afghan Girl. Now if he can be happy with that, I must be a fool to think what I have is not good enough.

    That's my current thought on this topic. We'll see how the results come along. 3 new rolls of film heading into the lab today.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,696
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by RattyMouse View Post
    I agree. By sheer coincidence I bought a Nikon FM2, which is the camera Steve McCurry used to photograph Afghan Girl. Now if he can be happy with that, I must be a fool to think what I have is not good enough.

    That's my current thought on this topic. We'll see how the results come along. 3 new rolls of film heading into the lab today.

    Mr RattyMouse, I'm sure there's plenty of wild eyed youngsters in China worthy of an Afghan Girl moment to flex your FM2 on, but nothing beats having a vision for the unusual and just being there, in the right place at the precisely right moment.

    Nothing captures the imagination more than McCurry's shot of the girl with those searing clear eyes. I Googled it before ("Afghan Girl" and follow to NG's "A Life Revealed") and up she comes, hauntingly beautiful as the day he got the pic. There's quite an interesting background on Sharba Gullut (?spellling, the girl's name), an adult now of course with nowhere near the same emotionally-charged face as that 30 years ago. I've never quite seen anything that goes near that pic, not even in this digitally-pervasive, supercharged world. Pity about the pathetic, amateurish and plain silly parodies that splinter the serenity of the initial pic. A great pity.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Chattanooga TN
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    533
    Images
    12
    I am drawn to producing very high resolution, fairly grainless color images at the moment. I have been shooting Vision3 250D movie stock and adding 10ml/L H202 to the RA4 print developer, to adjust contrast. At 8x10 print size, I am blown away by the results. No discernible grain - phenomenal dynamic range - and spot on contrast. My results are better than my results with Portra 160NC (I haven't used the latest Portra 160). My "go to" lenses are mainly Nikon manual focus, my favorite right now being the 35-135 f3.5 zoom while I get some of my fixed focal length lenses "Ai'd".

    A previous commenter compared results to a 5 or 6 megapixel image. I'm not sure what that means. Kodak's spec sheet for Vison3 250D indicates resolution of 100 sine waves/mm which is likely in excess of all but the very best 35mm format lenses.

    I have done some 11x14's shot on Portra - also quite grainless, but I don't think they'd hold up against medium format - because you do begin to notice the drop off in resolution due to the limited negative area.

    I agree comparisons with digital are futile - the two media are quite different. Also cropped sensor images are only half the area of 35mm (or more precisely, 2/3x2/3). And each film grain can discern any color (no Bayer screen). I do think I get infinitely better results wet printing than scanning, but that may be due in part to the fact that my scanner is not the best (Nikon LS 2000)
    Last edited by newcan1; 05-27-2013 at 08:08 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    12
    Hi there, I use a 1937 Contax II and associated (Russian) lenses. I expect good, sharp results with subjects that fill the frame (using FP4 or Delta 100 b&W film), but detail is likely to be lacking in such as landscapes or similar views.
    I have a 23cm monitor and scan negatives, I can get a good sharp picture from from 35mm. I regularly got good quality 8 x 10 images when I used to print from an enlarger. The main thing is to enjoy using the camera for the subjects it is best for, I like 35mm for close to subject shots where I need a good depth of field (can't get that with the Pentacon Six), and medium format for detail shots which need the resolution of 120 format film.
    I try not to compare to my digital SLR as it is like comparing chalk with cheese really.

    Cheers,

    Steve

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    281
    You should be able to get good quality 16x12's with good technique. However, perhaps you should be thinking of "atmosphere and feeling" when photographing, rather than being over concerned about technical matters. I stopped buying photo magazines as they seem more concerned with megapixels than pictures. Don't fall into this "mine's sharper than yours" trap.

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    880
    Lately I have been shooting Ektar 100 in a Bronica GS-1. If my shutter speed is adequate and I focus carefully I can have pretty large prints made with no grain showing. In a minimally cropped 8X10 and also using Ektar 100 I can also make a very high quality print from a 35mm negative. At 11X14 or larger the print from the 6X7 negative will be sharper and have finer grain. A GS-1 is not suitable for very fast work like sporting events. You have to pick the right equipment for the job and take it from there. If I put TP or Imagelink HQ into a 35mm camera and use a sharp enough lens I can make very large prints which are sharp and show very little grain. The problem is that the EI is low and this set-up is not suitable for general picture taking. I like to say that when I am shooting I enjoy the lighter weight and smaller size of 35mm equipment but when I make prints I prefer the larger negatives of the medium format cameras. Care must be taken when using any format but it is generaly easier to make large prints (over 8X10) from larger negatives. The ix Nikkors for my Nikon Pronea APS cameras, especially the 20-60, are capable of making large prints. The film type is the only limitation. I wish Kodak would offer Ektar 100 in the APS format. Last week I bought a Bronica GS-1 from an eBay seller for $17.16. It came without a focusing screen or crank but with a battery cover. The battery cover alone is worth more than $17.16. I put on a finder, a back, a lens and a Speed Grip. The body works properly. With medium format prices being so low and with very high quality 120 film still available, people who need large prints should try medium format. They would be pleasantly surprised. How many megapixels fit into a 6X7 Ektar 100 negative? Don't ask!

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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