That's a popular argument today. It looks good from a normal viewing distance. What's a normal viewing distance? When I see prints in a museum or show I put my nose up to them.
photographs are supposed to be viewed from a distance, aren't they ?
It's at least nice to have the possibility of moving in close and seeing detail instead of smear.
smear?
Acros 100, or any current film from kodak or ilford can barely reach half of what a decent prime lens for 35mm RF cameras is capable of, not just Leica, Zeiss etc.
Acros 100 is underpowered even for Industar 3,5/50 or most of the Jupiter glass.
If you really want big pictures ya just gotta shoot big film.
If you go waaaay back in my posts on here, you will see I too was obsessed with films like Techpan in 35mm...then I started printing from 120 and eventually 4x5 and found it exponentially easier to arrive at a nice print with loads of detail and tonal nuance.
I do love 35mm though, it's a often chosen tool by many for a reason and being able to react fast to things and nail the focus easily makes it a worthwhile choice. But the photo...impact, impact, impact....
...or just shoot a big idea and have a big print made out of it. This 35mm Tmax 100 shot was printed 30' feet wide...no one complained about it not being a larger format...
... I have quite a nice stash of Kodak Techpan in 35mm and 120 and while amazing in 35mm behind a lens like the Leica 50mm 1.4 Asph, the prints are not nearly as amazing as say, APX25, PanF, Tmax 100 or Acros in 120. One of the main reasons is dust, it is night and day between 35mm and 120 when it comes to printing and a film like Techpan with no grain to hide it is kind of a nightmare. ...
hi georg
sorry to ask this, i mean no disrespect ...
but i never understand why it is so important to have excessive sharpness so one could
inspect the film under a microscope .. ?
photographs are supposed to be viewed from a distance, aren't they ?
i mean i don't look at dry point etchings or pointalist paintings with my nose to the image, don't do that to photograph ...
or should i?
i mean i have 16x20 prints made from 35mm negatives ( tri x processed in gaf universal )
that look fine, if you are up-close you see the film, but you don't see the image ...
...or just shoot a big idea and have a big print made out of it. This 35mm Tmax 100 shot was printed 30' feet wide...no one complained about it not being a larger format...
hi georg
sorry to ask this, i mean no disrespect ...
but i never understand why it is so important to have excessive sharpness so one could
inspect the film under a microscope .. ?
photographs are supposed to be viewed from a distance, aren't they ?
i mean i don't look at dry point etchings or pointalist paintings with my nose to the image, don't do that to photograph ...
or should i?
i mean i have 16x20 prints made from 35mm negatives ( tri x processed in gaf universal )
that look fine, if you are up-close you see the film, but you don't see the image ...
huh
f64 sort of thing?
" nose to glass and love the details" ?
wouldn't you put your nose up to a print of Edward Weston's Cabbage?
.
I just get tired of all the digital people saying that with a 10 megapixel camera you can print huge murals. Then when someone tells them it's not sharp they reply that you have to look at it from a normal viewing distance, whatever that is
I would but that's not all I'd do. I'd mostly look at it from a normal viewing distance ... (well defined in various encyclopaedia, as it happens)
It depends upon the photograph of course but wouldn't you put your nose up to a print of Edward Weston's Cabbage? https://www.flickr.com/photos/eam1230/1794608674/in/photostream/ If I'm admiring a 16x20 print or any other size, I'm going to stand right in front of it and not view it from across the room.
I just get tired of all the digital people saying that with a 10 megapixel camera you can print huge murals. Then when someone tells them it's not sharp they reply that you have to look at it from a normal viewing distance, whatever that is.
I view photographs from the "usual" viewing distance and I get my nose up to the print too.
Right... as we all do...and being able to closely inspect for very fine detail is damn nice rather than seeing course grain and blur because that fine detail puts you "there".
Or smear.
Touch, lick ...
hi alan
not sure if i would put my nose up to it, but i would look at it not from so close i couldn't see the whole image.
i think everyone's normal viewing distance is different ... mine "viewing distance" certainly isn't from across the room, unless it is an enormous
print and i need that much space between me and the image to see it whole, unless it is the intent of the photographer NOT to see the image as a whole image
but as close up 'vision bites" and if that is the point, up close i will look ...
there used to be a painting at the mfa in boston (i wish i could remember it's name ... ) it was from the 1870s i think,
and it was floor to ceiling and an enormous wall size image ... if you were too close you couldn't see it you had to be a few feet back
to even see what it was ... too far away didn't work either ...
i agree ... whatever that is ( and the-that depends on the image ? )
john
I understand film formats but at one time I was trying to understand digital and kept getting the same silly answers from the digital crowd.
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?