Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
Roger, then you could also ask why people are using type 135 anyway... I mean, using it is not only a question of the price of larger format equipment.

And Kodak Technical Pan was not readily available over here as far as I remember. At least not easier than those high-resolution films of today.
Well it hasn't been available here for a long time either, as I think I said.

The reason to use 35mm nowadays, in my view, is for easy handheld shooting, quick operation with moving or rapidly changing subjects, and very fast lenses for low light. None of those lend themselves to big, grainless prints of stationary subjects, and even if you do get them to appear grainless, sharpness is going to be limited by motion, either camera or subject or both, more often than not.

In other words, if you are going to put the camera on a tripod and take photos of stationary objects and make large prints, use a larger camera. And if you aren't doing those things I don't think the film will help you much as the other factors will be the limiting ones.

Quote Originally Posted by fatso View Post
Hi Roger, I make 40" x 40" enlargements and want to finest grain possible - my Zeiss lenses are clearly outresolving TMAX 100 so I'm looking for a higher resolution film with similar tonality (in 120 rollfilm)





Paul
Well ok, THAT I understand. I can't print larger than 16x20 and, though I wouldn't mind being able to do 20x24 don't think I'd do it that often if I could. My standard print size from medium and large format is 11x14 more often than not, and 8x10 from 35mm.

If you want to make very large prints like this you need something else. The film may help, but the sacrifices in tonality are not worth it IMHO though they may be to you. My suggestion would be large format but I realize it isn't for everyone. I enjoy working with 4x5 but it can be trying at the best of times and not by any means suited for all subjects. It would probably be great for the example you posted, though.