Cameras that are more expensive than a Leica

baachitraka · Nov 5, 2014

Projecting, high resolution positives can be different than viewing 20MP image on any high quality monitor.

Slixtiesix · Nov 5, 2014

Indeed. Everyone who ever visited an IMAX theatre knows this...

georg16nik · Nov 5, 2014

Slixtiesix said:
Indeed. Everyone who ever visited an IMAX theatre knows this...

Not all IMAX are born equal, some are dig / optical projectors using blowups, others are optical and project 70mm print.

removed account4 · Nov 5, 2014

film_man said:
Your argument is exactly the same as some dude with a 20+MP digital camera makes, "my 24MP full frame digital camera gets me more resolution and sharpness than large format film, no tripod, no big cameras, no hassle, no cost". You just replaced the 20MP camera with some funky slow film.

exactly

the problem is that people forget
that it isn't the camera that makes the photograph
tichy had no 24mp camera, he barely had water to process
his images, and they are far more interesting than
some deeply resolved full splendor extra sharp grain
f128 landscape where the camera operator hunted for someone
else's tripod holes ...

i wish people would forget about the gear and concentrate on
making interesting photographs ... but its obvious that will never happen LOL

Henning Serger · Nov 5, 2014

film_man said:
Your argument is exactly the same as some dude with a 20+MP digital camera makes, "my 24MP full frame digital camera gets me more resolution and sharpness than large format film, no tripod, no big cameras, no hassle, no cost". You just replaced the 20MP camera with some funky slow film.

No, not at all. You should read my post.

A statement like "my 24MP full frame digital camera gets me more resolution and sharpness than large format film" is simply wrong in this general way and cannot be proved by facts.
We have made the tests.
And I've never made a general statement. I've clearly said Adox CMS 20 II delivered better detail rendition than Adox CHS 100 (old version). We have the proof, we've demonstrated the results to many many photographers and they agreed. It was clearly visible.
We did the direct comparison e.g. also with Acros 100 in 4x5", and then Acros delivered better detail rendition. But the advantage was relative small.

I am so tired of these discussions. In 99,9% of the cases the critics are people who have never used this film.
They have never done all these extremely detailed tests we've done over the years.
They have no experiences at all with the stuff.
They don't know what they are talking about.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning Serger · Nov 5, 2014

jnanian said:
exactly

the problem is that people forget
that it isn't the camera that makes the photograph

That is a Binsenweisheit, and has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion here.
No one has said that an outstanding film replaces the skill of the photographer!!

I like to take pictures. I just want to have fun with photography. I don't ask myself whether it is "art" what I produce.
I am satiesfied if I like the picture,
and if the people I have made the picture for do like it.
And if my clients like my work.
And if I get the results I want with these films, wonderful. What do I need more?

jnanian said:
tichy had no 24mp camera, he barely had water to process
his images, and they are far more interesting than
some deeply resolved full splendor extra sharp grain
f128 landscape where the camera operator hunted for someone
else's tripod holes ...

That is your opinion, and it is just an opinion.
Other people have different opinions, and may don't like his pictures at all.

jnanian said:
i wish people would forget about the gear and concentrate on
making interesting photographs ... but its obvious that will never happen LOL

Gear is a tool to get a wanted result.
And these films can be very good tools to get wanted results.
Not less, not more.
They serve a need.
Like a medium format camera, like large a format camera, like a high speed film, like infrared film etc.
All just tools for certain applications.
A good photographer use the tools which are best for the shots he wants.
That can be sometimes a pinhole camera, sometimes 35mm, sometimes medium format, sometimes large format, and sometimes a certain film.

Those who bashes these type of films generally should at least be consequent:
They should bash medium and large format in general.
110 and pinhole are sufficient.......

Best regards,
Henning

removed account4 · Nov 5, 2014

it isn't me that sees this long running trend ...
from a reader's letter sent to view camera magazine in around 2003:

"if i see another slot canyon nude, i think i am going to puke."

flavio81 · Nov 5, 2014

+1 to Henning's approach to photography, same as mine.

Sirius Glass · Nov 5, 2014

frank said:
Lomography rules!

Rules what? It is not in my dreams and it is not in my nightmares either.

georg16nik · Nov 5, 2014

jnanian said:
it isn't me that sees this long running trend ...
from a reader's letter sent to view camera magazine in around 2003:

"if i see another slot canyon nude, i think i am going to puke."

He should go starve in some 5th world country - no more puke problems, no more money to buy magazines!
No Art, No problems.

frank · Nov 5, 2014

flavio81 said:
+1 to Henning's approach to photography, same as mine.

Same here.

My "lomography rules" comment was a sarcastic, tongue in cheek comment in response to a post about sharpness not being important.

Sometimes it is important, sometimes not, depends on the intent of the photographer.

removed account4 · Nov 5, 2014

georg16nik said:
He should go starve in some 5th world country - no more puke problems, no more money to buy magazines!
No Art, No problems.

starving oneself has nothing to do with it,
neither does living in poverty it has to do with trite
overdone, no imagination image making
that has been done 10,000,000 times before with
super saturated 8x10 velvia &c ... YAWN ...

frank said:
Same here.

My "lomography rules" comment was a sarcastic, tongue in cheek comment in response to a post about sharpness not being important.

Sometimes it is important, sometimes not, depends on the intent of the photographer.

seems kind of off the wall for you frank
seeing you often suggest
let people use what they want
whatever makes them happy sort of posts ..
i guess you don't actually think this,
if it involves a lomo ?

film_man · Nov 5, 2014

Henning Serger said:
No, not at all. You should read my post.

A statement like "my 24MP full frame digital camera gets me more resolution and sharpness than large format film" is simply wrong in this general way and cannot be proved by facts.
We have made the tests.
And I've never made a general statement. I've clearly said Adox CMS 20 II delivered better detail rendition than Adox CHS 100 (old version). We have the proof, we've demonstrated the results to many many photographers and they agreed. It was clearly visible.
We did the direct comparison e.g. also with Acros 100 in 4x5", and then Acros delivered better detail rendition. But the advantage was relative small.

I am so tired of these discussions. In 99,9% of the cases the critics are people who have never used this film.
They have never done all these extremely detailed tests we've done over the years.
They have no experiences at all with the stuff.
They don't know what they are talking about.

Best regards,
Henning

But I did read your post. Yes you are right, I never used Adox. In fact I never will. Why? Because Adox CMS 20 II is an extremely sharp, rather contrasty (from samples I've seen) ISO 20 black and white film. The problem is that I have no interest in using a 35mm ISO 20 black and white film, even if the sharpness was mind blowing. Why? Because it makes shooting 35mm so impractical that I might as well shoot a larger format. Ok, the cost is a bit higher but not really that much higher overall because I probably will only ever get to shoot 10 shots a year with such a film. I could shoot it with 8x10 and it still wouldn't be that expensive in total.

Regardless, I am absolutely sure it is an amazing film and I believe everything you say, I'm just saying that sharpness is just one aspect of an image. For example, colour is usually high up there on the list and this film lacks it. So yes, saying that Adox proves that 35mm can get you the resolution of 120 or larger is just like someone saying my 24MP camera is sharper when viewed at 100% in Photoshop vs someones else's sheet film scans. It just proves a theoretical point while overlooking the actual image.

Anyways, peace! The good thing with film is that there are so many different films to cater for each and every one's obsession! Just because I don't need such a film doesn't mean others shouldn't shoot it!

frank · Nov 5, 2014

jnanian said:
seems kind of off the wall for you frank
seeing you often suggest
let people use what they want
whatever makes them happy sort of posts ..
i guess you don't actually think this,
if it involves a lomo ?

I have a quirky spence of humour. I guess it doesn't always translate.

I am a live and let live/do whatever works for you kind of guy.

Pioneer · Nov 5, 2014

Just out of curiosity Henning. What exposure index do you use with CMS 20 II in your Nikon? I just loaded a roll in my own F6 and want to make some photographs. I have been told it gives good results at EI6 but this could have been internet rumor for all I remember.

removed account4 · Nov 5, 2014

frank said:
I have a quirky spence of humour. I guess it doesn't always translate.

I am a live and let live/do whatever works for you kind of guy.

unless its a lomo

hehehe
i know .. i was just giving you the bizness

Alan Gales · Nov 6, 2014

frank said:
I have a quirky spence of humour. I guess it doesn't always translate.

Don't feel bad. You are not alone. It happens to me all the time!

Slixtiesix · Nov 6, 2014

georg16nik said:
Not all IMAX are born equal, some are dig / optical projectors using blowups, others are optical and project 70mm print.

That´s all too true George! Some years ago I saw "The Dark Knight", which was partially shot on 70mm film, in one of the real, old-school IMAX theatres and was simply stunned by the quality. Four years later I visited the same theatre again to see "Sherlock Holmes" and "Titanic 3D" but noticed that the quality was nowhere like I had remembered it. First I put it all on the fact that these movies were only remastered from a smaller format, but then I learned that they had switched from IMAX to digital projection (4K) in the meantime. This was nowhere like the old IMAX and I have not been there ever since.
I have -1 dpt on both eyes. If I can´t make out any difference between wearing my glasses or not when sitting in the last row, the picture quality must be bad :confused:

Henning Serger · Nov 6, 2014

film_man said:
But I did read your post. Yes you are right, I never used Adox. In fact I never will. Why? Because Adox CMS 20 II is an extremely sharp, rather contrasty (from samples I've seen) ISO 20 black and white film.

The film can be contrasty if you want it to be and develop it for contrast.
But with the right development (right developer) you can also get normal contrast as with other films.

film_man said:
The problem is that I have no interest in using a 35mm ISO 20 black and white film, even if the sharpness was mind blowing. Why? Because it makes shooting 35mm so impractical that I might as well shoot a larger format.

The sample pictures I've posted above were all hand held snapshots: Aperture in the f2,8 - f5,6 range, shutter speeds in the 1/125s - 1/320s range.
Millions of photographers have used Kodachrome 25 hand held in the past, and got stunning pictures......

film_man said:
Regardless, I am absolutely sure it is an amazing film and I believe everything you say, I'm just saying that sharpness is just one aspect of an image.

No one here has denied that. It is a Binsenweisheit.
And sharpness is only one strength of this film.The extremely fine garin, extremely high resolutuion, the "3D clarity", the orthopanchromatic tonality, the flexibility of using the film both as a negative and a reversal film, the low price are further advantages.

film_man said:
For example, colour is usually high up there on the list and this film lacks it.

Of course it cannot replace a colour film. I love shooting colour, too.
I am not one of the BW fundamentalists .

film_man said:
Anyways, peace! The good thing with film is that there are so many different films to cater for each and every one's obsession! Just because I don't need such a film doesn't mean others shouldn't shoot it!

Exactly.
I am not interested in shooting the Lomo Purple for example. But if people like it and get the results they want, I am absolutely fine with it.
Horses for courses.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning Serger · Nov 6, 2014

Pioneer said:
Just out of curiosity Henning. What exposure index do you use with CMS 20 II in your Nikon? I just loaded a roll in my own F6 and want to make some photographs. I have been told it gives good results at EI6 but this could have been internet rumor for all I remember.

It depends on the development and the developer.
The snapshot samples I've posted above were shot at ISO 20/14° for reversal development in the modified Agfa Scala process of Photo Studio 13.
For negative development I highly recommend Adox Adotech II (or Spur Modular UR New).
Depending on the contrast and the characteristic curve you get an effective speed in the ISO 6 - 20 range.
You should test it for your specific needs. As with all BW films best is evaluating the characteristic curve with a densitometer and / or making some tests with a grey scale.
At lower speeds and shorter developments times you get a more linear characteristic curve (higher dynamic range), at higher speeds and longer development times you will get a more S-shape characteristic curve with less shadow detail and more contrast in the mid tones.

Best regards,
Henning

Pioneer · Nov 6, 2014

Thanks Henning. I have done some testing on the older formulation of CMS 20 but I have read some information on the new emulsion that indicates that reducing the film speed isn't necessary any longer. Guess I'll try some at box speed and see what comes out.

Henning Serger · Nov 7, 2014

Pioneer said:
Thanks Henning. I have done some testing on the older formulation of CMS 20 but I have read some information on the new emulsion that indicates that reducing the film speed isn't necessary any longer.

Hi Dan,

yes, it is right the Adox CMS 20 II in combination with the Adox Adotech II has higher speed compared to the older version of film and developer.
But you also have the flexibility to use the new film-developer combination at different speeds, with different development times to get different contrast and characteristic curves.

Best regards,
Henning

Cameras that are more expensive than a Leica

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency