as you increase / decrease film format, and control, your quality increases?

[pdeeh]

"quality" of course can be used rather more in the sense of "attribute", which is how I often use it myself; perhaps this is also Matt's use.

 

[markbarendt]

"quality" of course can be used rather more in the sense of "attribute", which is how I often use it myself; perhaps this is also Matt's use.

Absolutely on both thoughts.

My preference of other words is simply to lose the connection to the good/bad, greater/lesser comparison that the word quality tends to bring.

The soft focus lens movement was driven in large part by the evolution of photographic materials (plates and paper), they suddenly got "too good" and portrait shooters were getting complaints because every last damn wrinkle and blemish was now visible in exquisite detail.

That exquisite detail is a boon for certain groups but a bane for others.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I agree, Dan. 135 format excels at a few things... very close macro and very long shots being two of them.

I'm sorry, but that's not what I said.

I said nothing about long focus lenses.

And I said that I went up to 2x3 to do better than more-or-less the best possible with 35 mm for some kinds of closeup shots.

My 2x3 and, now, 612 gear is absolutely useless with moving subjects, especially closeup. This because of how it works, not because of format. Focus, compose, close shutter, stop down, cock shutter, insert film holder, pull dark slide, take exposure is much slower than focus, compose, shoot. A Leica on a Focuslide would be nearly as bad as my larger format gear.

Where 35 mm beats the 2x3 and 6x12 gear I use is in speed and ease of setting up. Portability, too. For some shots an SLR is best. As I said, what I want is an FM2 scaled up to shoot 2x3. Fat chance of that.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'm sorry, but that's not what I said.

I said nothing about long focus lenses.

And I said that I went up to 2x3 to do better than more-or-less the best possible with 35 mm for some kinds of closeup shots.

My 2x3 and, now, 612 gear is absolutely useless with moving subjects, especially closeup. This because of how it works, not because of format. Focus, compose, close shutter, stop down, cock shutter, insert film holder, pull dark slide, take exposure is much slower than focus, compose, shoot. A Leica on a Focuslide would be nearly as bad as my larger format gear.

Where 35 mm beats the 2x3 and 6x12 gear I use is in speed and ease of setting up. Portability, too. For some shots an SLR is best. As I said, what I want is an FM2 scaled up to shoot 2x3. Fat chance of that.

You already know the closest you'll come to that is a Pentax 6x7 SLR.

 

[darkosaric]

I have made more good pictures with Diana & Holga cameras than large format. Partly because they are more fun to use.

Jon

Sometimes final result just looks better from those plastic toys:

Diana F (Fomapan 400 in Rodinal):

Dead Link Removed

Nikon F3 (Technical pan in Technidol):

Dead Link Removed

 

[michr]

Which qualities are emphasized by larger film and the slow and careful attitude? Certainly not spontaneity.

 

[markbarendt]

Which qualities are emphasized by larger film and the slow and careful attitude? Certainly not spontaneity.

Distilled thoughts, like quotes, are rarely universal in scope. I find that the context that a quote lives in, is typically unsaid, simply assumed.

We need to understand what that context is.

 

[markbarendt]

I will also say that large format does not exclude spontinaety.

I took a 4x5 camping a while back and set up just outside of where everybody in the group were sitting around shooting the bull and started doing portraits. That wasn't planned, the opportunity just popped up, but it was fun.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

We make the best photographs with cameras that suit us, that feel good to use, and that harmonize with the subject matter we are working with. The rest doesn't matter. We all do the best we can with what we've got. There are tons of iconic photographers who used 35mm cameras, and equally many who used view cameras.

The camera does not make the photographer.
But a photographer makes their favorite camera(s) work for them.

 

[cliveh]

Cameras don't take pictures, people do.

 

[pdeeh]

ha that reminds of ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXzFp1lshBE

 

[darkosaric]

ha that reminds of ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXzFp1lshBE

I think you wanted to say:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk

 

[pdeeh]

Nope, I meant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXzFp1lshBE ... much funnier

 

[pbromaghin]

a lot of folks. believe when they increase or decrease film size their quality increases ( or decreases ).

the same can be said for lack of control ( holga, box cameras, pinholes &C).

do you honestly believe you can take better photographs with your diana than your ebony 11x14or better photographs woth your spotomatic than with your clack?

and why?

When did you start using punctuation?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Fair enough, pdeeh. I'm not trying to "control" your choices... only "influence" them. If you weren't looking for opinions then why start this thread? If you want to shoot and contact 8x10" then that's your choice. Personally, I don't want to bother with small prints and don't want to bother with anything smaller than 40x50". That's my choice. My point is that 135 and 6x7cm format are more than capable of outstanding quality 8x10" enlargements. I can't fathom, in the depths of my feeble mind, why anyone would wrestle with sheet film (especially 8x10) just to make 8x10" prints. If limited DOF and smooth bokeh are the goals then buy fast lenses and shoot them wide open.

Why would you want to make 8x10 prints from an 8x10 negative? Have you ever seen an 8x10 contact print? Or any contact print from any size sheet film for that matter? All enlargement, no matter the film format and no matter the size of the enlargement, will degrade the image quality through loss of sharpness and contrast. That can of course be mitigated by a skillful darkroom printer, but nonetheless, it is fact. Go look at some 8x10 contact prints some time and you'll see the snap and sparkle you won't see from an enlargement.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Why would you want to make 8x10 prints from an 8x10 negative? Have you ever seen an 8x10 contact print? Or any contact print from any size sheet film for that matter? All enlargement, no matter the film format and no matter the size of the enlargement, will degrade the image quality through loss of sharpness and contrast. That can of course be mitigated by a skillful darkroom printer, but nonetheless, it is fact. Go look at some 8x10 contact prints some time and you'll see the snap and sparkle you won't see from an enlargement.

Careful taking procedures along with excellent equipment plus the right enlarging equipment and techniques produce excellent results. Yes, I've seen 8x10 and 11x14 contact prints. They can be very nice but, IMO, they're not worth carrying all that heavy bulky gear just to make small contact prints. IMO... and it's only my opinion... that's a waste of effort. Now... if you were shooting 16x20 and the prints could be viewed up close that might be a different story. Again... just my opinion.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Careful taking procedures along with excellent equipment plus the right enlarging equipment and techniques produce excellent results. Yes, I've seen 8x10 and 11x14 contact prints. They can be very nice but, IMO, they're not worth carrying all that heavy bulky gear just to make small contact prints. IMO... and it's only my opinion... that's a waste of effort. Now... if you were shooting 16x20 and the prints could be viewed up close that might be a different story. Again... just my opinion.

I didn't say you can't produce excellent results from enlargements of small(er) negatives. I'm just saying that, in answer to your question, a lot of large format camera users do feel the effort required to use those cameras to produce contact prints is worth the effort. Myself included.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I didn't say you can't produce excellent results from enlargements of small(er) negatives. I'm just saying that, in answer to your question, a lot of large format camera users do feel the effort required to use those cameras to produce contact prints is worth the effort. Myself included.

At 12x20 or 16x20 I might agree... if viewed at pixel-peeping (grain-peeping) distance... but not viewing 8x10 prints. IMHO, contact printing to 8x10 is silly.

 

[jp498]

An 8x10 contact print of soft focus work is pretty darn nice. If you enlarge/shrink a soft focus photo, you magnify the blur/distortion which can completely alter the look of the photo. Capture it right, contact print it, and it's way smoother than butter or a baby's bottom.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

At 12x20 or 16x20 I might agree... if viewed at pixel-peeping (grain-peeping) distance... but not viewing 8x10 prints. IMHO, contact printing to 8x10 is silly.

We will agree to disagree, then. You are entitled to your opinion, but that it doesn't work for you doesn't outweigh the fact that for many others, it does work.

 

[removed account4]

Sometimes final result just looks better from those plastic toys:

Diana F (Fomapan 400 in Rodinal):

Dead Link Removed

Nikon F3 (Technical pan in Technidol):

Dead Link Removed

this is what i am talking about
as usual . thanks darko

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

We will agree to disagree, then. You are entitled to your opinion, but that it doesn't work for you doesn't outweigh the fact that for many others, it does work.

Point taken and agreed. I intended no negativity.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

a lot of folks. believe when they increase or decrease film size their quality increases ( or decreases ).

the same can be said for lack of control ( holga, box cameras, pinholes &C).

do you honestly believe you can take better photographs with your diana than your ebony 11x14or better photographs woth your spotomatic than with your clack?

and why?

I do, a larger negative needs less enlargement to make a printand has more information and detail recorded than a smaller negative.Some of that gets lost with enlarging the negative.However lens manufacturers have seen this as a challenge in in general terms, small format lenses outperform larger format lenses.this is not without exceptions, of course.

 

[gzinsel]

dear Jnanian,

I understand your gig about fun. rest assured, I am not opposed to "the fun" of Photography. However looking back at my years in photography, Either I have been using photography as "serious" medium. to ask questions, to explore ideas that i am just starting to grasp etc. . . a.k.a. "fine art" in other words I have been taking it seriously. or I have been doing work for clients. ( in some ways, or most, that should be considered serious photography, I mean they are paying, I have to give them customer service!!) Fun and photography do not go hand in hand . . . . In my world. It is hard work for me.

So . . . . as far as the big question, is concerned.? let me rephrase it. for those that. . . . can't remember or forgot. the question is. Can I ( the photographer) MAKE BOTH the experience, and the product, an enjoyable activity/object regardless of materiality( for the sack of arguement here, apuger's, I mean film/camera/lens combo) and have something that come about from THAT, that is, artistically important? Can "fun" be an integral part of the "thing" of thinglyness" ?

Can I extend myself into "the life-world" horizon with or without . . . . . THAT camera and still make something substaintial, Because part of it was "WITH" fun. HMMMMMMMMM. I do not know. my suspiciosion is no, On first glance of the question most people will say yes, HOWEVER. . . . . as we slow down the moments that photography TAKES ( no pun intended) , we will experience some pain, some insecurity, some lingering question that puts doubt into our mind. "something" that would NOT be considered fun. if you can, , , , if you can keep . . that at "bay"! perhaps, yes? "Beingness" HAS TO BE IN THE MOMENT, though. And fluid. I can NOT do that do that every day, that only comes every blue moon, with the car wash!!! others are more fortunate, its comes with the mail. . . . EVERYDAY. . . . .. . ( "bastards", of course said underneath your breathe)

There are times or moments when I am having fun, and because of that fun, something "special Happens" !!!! (no ! I do not have my hand s down my pants!!!!!!!) but you can see in the print, "THAT" coming thrue> so, . . . ya. Maybe. that could have resulted from Lack of serious "camera equipment" or me being "be" . Everything is SOOOOOOOO FLUID. I can't tell night from day! good luck with your musings though>>> I find them interesting too. good luck and best regards Greg

 

[dpurdy]

If I use a bigger format I expect technically better optical quality in terms of resolution and clarity. If I use a smaller format I expect technically less optical quality in terms of resolution and clarity. Whether that means a potentially better photo is subject to the values of the viewer or photographer. Technical quality does not equate aesthetic quality. Technical quality is measurable, aesthetic quality is in the eye of the beholder.