No doubt ability plays a major factor along with film and paper choice.
This all reminds me of "different strokes" or opinions.
And -- key fact -- beauty is also defined by the VIEWING DISTANCE...
- 8x10" viewed at 12" is like 80" x 100" viewed at 120"; the grain size is IDENTICAL to the viewer under those conditions.
- But when you view both the 8x10" at 12" and also put your nose close to view the 80" x 100" at 12", the grain size is 10X larger in the 80" x 120" print at that viewing distance.
I have long held that 135 format was close to the limit of its enlargeabilty at 16X, unless you used very fine grain film to capture the image so grain did not become objectionable (unless used artistically). 645 could be enlarged to 1.8X larger final print size than 135 because it was still the same magnification of grain, and 4x5 could be enlarged by 4X larger print than 135 while retaining grain at the same magnification factorl
On the face of it super-compacts like the Klass W ....... I certainly wouldn't invest £400-800 in a two decade old film camera that might/probably will be a paperweight.
Assumption is that OP wants high res and low grain in a light weight rig... may be jumping too fast. Grain can be like a "pop" on a recording and adds some life to an otherwise overly smooth (almost like cake icing) digital image. Won't tell you what to like and what not to, but there is more variety out there.... though current "style" seems to favor grainless. Been there, done that, and moved on... maybe as you are doing now. BTW, I like to print big 'cause it pushes the skill curve out as well as highlights what you've really got....
Different subject; is it worth to to visit Japan to pick up cheap film cameras? Or are the prices much the same because of eBay et al?Klasse W and S cameras only went out of production a few years ago. I'm STILL Kicking myself for not picking up one the last time I was in Japan. Only $400 back then!!!!
Different subject; is it worth to to visit Japan to pick up cheap film cameras? Or are the prices much the same because of eBay et al?
I have made a lot of mural prints from 35mm in my career , I will say that I have always and mean always preferred negatives that are from rangefinder cameras like Leica and Contax G2.
I have always hated negatives from those mirror slap cameras.
So here's the question ;
If I one lucky day get the chance to exhibit or sell some large prints (say 1x1,5m or 1,5x2 meters), I'm wondering:
- Are there good alternatives in 135mm-systems that would give the needed detail and resolution? To stick with FD-mount would be very convenient.
-Should I change to another 135-system? Leica M, other?
- Should I just invest in Medium Format? Recommendations?
the jump in negative quality from 35mm to MF is huge but so is cost and weight.Hi
So I'm selling most of my digital gear and going analogue.
I currently have an Xpan 2 (got it yesterday) and a Yashica Mat 124g in the MF.
In 35mm format I have two Canon Ae1s, an Olympus Trip 35 and a Ricoh 500G.
I have about a $ 2-3000 budget to further invest in FD-LENSED and /or another 35mm/MF system.
I prefer light gear because of a wrist-injury. The Xpan is about 1kg (2pounds), with a lens. For that style of camera-body, that I'd about as heavy as I'd go. My tlr Yashica is actually 1 1 kg, but I really don't notice the weight.
So here's the question ;
If I one lucky day get the chance to exhibit or sell some large prints (say 1x1,5m or 1,5x2 meters), I'm wondering:
- Are there good alternatives in 135mm-systems that would give the needed detail and resolution? To stick with FD-mount would be very convenient.
-Should I change to another 135-system? Leica M, other?
- Should I just invest in Medium Format? Recommendations?
I have been looking at a wide 35mm compact such as Fuji Klasse W or Ricoh Gr 21 etc.. and also Fuji/Voigtlander G670 alternatives in MF and others ..
Any input would be welcome
P.s. posting in MF-forum as well.
Bob, I have seen in another post that you are using APO Rodagons mostly.
Have you any exp in comparing APO / Regular 50mm Rodagons vs Rodagon G in 30-50-70x magnifications?
LOL! A lot of nonsense in this thread, and some reasonable guidance. I expect to see, "I can print murals from 110 film!" Sure you can - if your standards are low enough!
You would have to be blind not to see the difference between 35mm and medium or large format for prints of 1m and up.
Rodagon-G, no questions. Especially if you're going above 20x. Bigger problems are enlarger stability & output so that you get reasonable exposure times, but most importantly of all: why do you need a print that big? Once you can answer that in a reasonable way, the rest will fall into place if you spend the money.
It depends on type of film and taking optics. And whether one compares apples to oranges.
The basic issue is that with stepping up format, the absolute resolution of the film rises stronger than the resolution of the larger format taking lenses falls of.
On the other hand one may take better photographs in resolution with a small camera, good optics and high-resolution film than with a larger camera mediocre film and optics and most important: the bulk of it all.
I've had a number of negatives made from medium format transparencies. A high contrast color negative is made from the transparency, and then printed by hand. Most of mine were shot onto 4x5 negative stock.Thanks - but I'm afraid you lost me. What is a inter-negatives? You create a new, larger negative? How does that work? So for an exhibition the printing lab creates this larger negative, and then a large print is a breeze? Sounds like a potentially very costly process?
I have tested 150 G vs 150 Componon S on 20x ... 105AEn and even 210 El-Nikkor (old one) that was installed at the moment . 150 G is at its hot-spot theoretically. But practically it is an outsider of 4..
So I wish to hear somebody who tested 50mm G vs regular or Apo rodagons.
Maybe just my 150G is so bad...
I do not print that big. But some client wish 170+ cm from 35 or even half 35mm... That is their right. For lab it is even better - more food to buy per 1 print
But when things go over 30x... I do not know what lens should I use. At the moment we use regular Rodagon 50n. It is very good for the money. Actually, second good in glass res chart tests against AEN105. So I feel that might be sadly surprised if a bonus from 50g would be like a bonus from 150G.
The best way to print large from 135 film is to scan it into a computer. You can enlarge the image much better with less apparent grain using software than traditional methods. Of course, you'll loose the look of real grain and can run into issues with digital artifacts, but if done correctly, you should be able to get a better looking larger print that way.
Of course, it all depends on the subject. You can print a portrait a lot larger than a landscape because no one gets close to a portrait to look at the model's pores. But they will often get close to a landscape to look at a tree's leaves or rock's texture. And how big you can go will depend on how the grain works with the photo. Sometimes street photography looks better with heavy grain, to give it a gritty look.
For me, I don't usually trust landscape photos above around 8x10 enlargements with 135 film. That's why I generally shoot landscapes with my 4x5 or digital. And among 135 cameras, I don't feel one is particularly better for going large than any other. Some lenses are better, for sure. But I've got a few extremely sharp lenses for most of my camera systems that can easily outresolve any 35mm film. That being said, sharpness isn't always a good thing.
My point is, every photo has to be considered individually, and what works best for one, may not work best for another. So rather than look for "the best" or apply general rules across the board, learn all of the strengths and weaknesses of the gear you have and how to best apply them.
I use a DSLR for scanning 135 film. I find it easier and quicker to work with, and can get a higher resolution than any other method. You can stitch together an enormous file if you so choose. Hwever, it doesn’t work as well with larger film formats. Drum scans are still king with large and medium format.BTDT & while a drum or high-end CCD scan may be 'easier' & faster to make, there is a visible difference (if you use the optimal enlarging lenses), especially once you get above about 3ft across. The sharp, noise free resolution of grain has a lot to do with it. If 135 fits your aesthetic & 30x45" prints are essential to your vision, TX at that size is pretty amazing, especially when you are not fighting aliasing from a scanner.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?