Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,760   Posts: 1,516,057   Online: 841
      
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 61 to 63 of 63
  1. #61

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    861
    I think 10" by 15" prints from 35mm is about a practical limit, whether from handheld or tripod mounted shots. While it is possible to get larger prints, the subject matter, contrast, and colour (or tonality in B/W) will start to become greater factors on whether the larger print will still remain compelling. As a few have mentioned, 6x4.5 is slightly easier to fit into the same, or just larger print sizes; and many of the cameras that allow this film size are not that much larger and heavier than some top of the line 35mm gear.

    If you look at some of the very large prints from Galen Rowell or Thomas Mangulson, then 35mm does indeed work well for some subjects. Consider that every aspect of your approach should be nearer to optimum, and then perhaps it is more realistic. Just because something is possible does not always make it the best choice.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat Photography

  2. #62
    PeterB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia.
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    597
    Hi Rob,

    Thanks for your reply.

    In my ignorance I assumed that if I couldn't see the grain when viewing a print then I also shouldn't be able to see any difference in tonal smoothness when the negs are different sizes.

    That wrong assumption led me to wonder what on earth people were talking about in this thread when they said that MF and LF prints have smoother tones. (i.e. If viewing two prints of the same size, one from a 35mm neg print and the other from a larger neg print and assuming no grain was visible on either print, then the larger neg print has smoother tones)

    When Tim replied to my question, he wrote:
    Quote Originally Posted by thuggins View Post
    ...When you make a photograph, photons are reflected from your subject, thru the camera lens and projected onto the film. The larger the negative, the more the photons are allowed to spread out. The smaller the negative, the more the photons are forced to "clump together".
    (my emphasis added)

    I then saw NO reference to grain in Tim's answer which further reinforced (in my mind) the bad assumption that the difference in tonal smoothness was unrelated to grain !!

    In fact I was on the verge of writing back to tell Tim that it has nothing to do with photons clumping or spreading (as I was a tad suspicious) . But I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt (silly me), assume his explanation was right and request clarification on the matter by forcing people to exclude grain from their answers !!!

    Now everyone has written back and told me it's mostly all about grain !!!
    Thanks to those who set me straight.

    Regarding the "spatial resolution" of the lens, usually the term refers to the image generated by the lens, but it is sometimes loosely used to refer to the properties of the lens that govern the spatial resolution of the image formed. see here . Although I probably should have used a more appropriate term such as the lens' "resolving power"

    thanks again
    regards
    Peter

    Quote Originally Posted by rob champagne View Post
    its all a question of enlargement. To make an 8x10 from 35mm requires approx 8 times enlargement. From 6x4.5 it requires approx 4 times enlargement. That means the 35mm film needs twice the enlargement for the same size print.
    The grain is the same size on film for both formats. That means the grain structure will be enlarged twice as much for 35mm format and enlarging grain adds visible granularity to the tone gradients. I don't mean you can actually see the grain. I mean it just looks coarser. Or to put it another way, it won't look quite as smooth. Thats not necessarily a bad thing. That reduced smoothness is usually more evident in highlights, especially in light grey skies.

    Spatial Resolution? WTFIT. I think you are getting ahead of yourself.
    Photons don't do clumping. Thats the preserve of film grain and thats down to developer used.
    Last edited by PeterB; 01-14-2008 at 10:44 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: changed underline to italics as it wasn't a link

  3. #63
    PeterB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia.
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    597
    Thanks Keith. You are correct. See my reply (to Rob) for full clarification of my misunderstanding.

    regards
    Peter
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    For the issue of tonality I don't see how grain effects can be neglected.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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