Golden Age of 35mm Photography

[ic-racer]

Yes I see I got the price of that film wrong but I still am going to get some. I'll post an H&D curve from a calibrated sensitometer when I get the film.

 

[ic-racer]

For the last few years I have been printing my 35mm work just a tad bigger than 4x6" centered on an 8x10 sheet of paper. At that size I can really concentrate on content and tonality and pretty much ignore any issue of "which lens is sharper."

 

[semi-ambivalent]

For the last few years I have been printing my 35mm work just a tad bigger than 4x6" centered on an 8x10 sheet of paper. At that size I can really concentrate on content and tonality and pretty much ignore any issue of "which lens is sharper."

ic-racer,

For kicks, the next time you mount one of those 4x6/8x10s don't center it vertically. Move the print up a bit. I used to do the centering thing and then one day I had an art framer mount a 16x20 for me and he weighted the bottom almost an inch compared to the top. Boy, what a difference! I don't know if there's a 'golden ratio' to follow or if you just need an eye (which I didn't have) but I think you'll be surprised by the effect.

good luck,

s-a

 

[ic-racer]

Yes, good point about 'even borders'. I will say that in the interest of simplification, I have the easel borders set up even. This is because sometimes I print "upside down" and sometimes not. We could have a whole thread on this, but when I analyze the projected image to plan composition, dodging and burning, sometimes I like looking at it upside down on the easel. Other times I like it right-side-up.

Another somewhat subtle finding is that when holding 8x10s in the hand the even borders seem to work better (those prints in the picture are flattened umounted 8x10 sheets), and when framing a print for wall hanging, the slight upward displacement of the image can look better.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

Yes, good point about 'even borders'. I will say that in the interest of simplification, I have the easel borders set up even. This is because sometimes I print "upside down" and sometimes not. We could have a whole thread on this, but when I analyze the projected image to plan composition, dodging and burning, sometimes I like looking at it upside down on the easel. Other times I like it right-side-up.

Another somewhat subtle finding is that when holding 8x10s in the hand the even borders seem to work better (those prints in the picture are flattened umounted 8x10 sheets), and when framing a print for wall hanging, the slight upward displacement of the image can look better.

Yes. You know, after posting that I wondered if I had spoken too soon. In your 8x10s the borders might serve only to separate the image from a possibly distracting background, so being centered all around does not jar the eye a bit because the mount becomes the wall, the entirety. I dug up a couple old 11x14s on 16x20 boards that I had centered and, yes, it is not bad at all. But an old mounted and framed image that was centered definitely looked 'heavy', static, and it worked against the full-frame 1:1.5 of the image. I'm trying to think of what it is about these two environments that makes centering work in one case and up-shift work in another. I suspect it involves some artistic understanding I do not have. (Those look like nice images, by the way.)

s-a

 

[perkeleellinen]

I do something very similar to ic-racer printing around 5x7 on 10x8 paper (I do this mostly in colour) and I'm intrigued now about moving the image up a little to have a larger bottom border. I also like what Thomas says, above. My journey never went larger than 6x6 but the only real impact that format changes made was on my wallet.

 

[lesm]

Les,

I too believe Thomas made great points about quality and I too enjoy 35mm's flexibility and automation on occasion, but I don't see "couldn't" and "only" as really applying here, there are very few absolutes when making photographs. I think that is part of what Thomas is getting at.

For example if I were in that shearing barn I'd have probably chosen my RB with a waist level finder, instead of 35mm. The intent is not necesarily to get a bigger negative but so that I wouldn't have to be on my knees so much and to be able to more easily get a floor level perspective.

In camera metering also isn't a big issue for me. Regardless of the camera in use manual settings are my norm, I typically meter with a handheld once for a given lighting situation, then meter once again when the light changes. I rarely let any camera decide what the exposure should be.

In the shearing barn I'd have taken four quick readings so that I'd know what to set the camera at depending on the direction I was shooting.

These choices work for me, not everybody cares about floor level perspectives and if metering every shot is important in somebody else's style/system so be it.

Yes, I take your several well-made points, Mark. To be honest I did think about taking the Mamiya and using the WLF, but I haven't had it that long and wasn't confident I could use it comfortably in what I knew was going to be a pressured, cramped and low-light situation. It was easy with the 35mm.
Thanks for your comments. I've learned something about metering technique which I'll experiment with. Maybe I fuss too much over it.
Les

 

[tomalophicon]

Show us your shearing pics Les.

 

[markbarendt]

I've learned something about metering technique which I'll experiment with. Maybe I fuss too much over it.
Les

Knowing and being comfortable with your cameras is important.

One thing that I found for myself was that switching from meter to meter was the biggest struggle in using my cameras well.

The meter in each camera lens combo has its own, shall we say, personality. An FM2 with a 35mm lens sees differently that an N90s with a 105mm lens which sees differently than ...

Taking the camera meter out of the question allows me to be familiar with one tool rather than 5 or so in my case. That familiarity makes it easier for me to use any camera and get consistent results. It reduces my variables down to EI (film choice), f-stop, and time. No more wondering about what the meter is doing/measuring.

That technique isn't mine BTW, it's a common technique used by wedding shooters. Once you get the hang of it, it can provide whole sets of shots that require little or no adjustment after the first print.

 

[AlbertZeroK]

FYI ORWO just posted 100ft rolls of N74 on their website for $40.

 

[ic-racer]

FYI ORWO just posted 100ft rolls of N74 on their website for $40.

Current stock of that is now two less...

 

[Grainy]

Yes, it's for sure a golden age regarding price. Cheap and accessible. And the gear is almost free, many times for free. Of course I do miss a few types of film, but luckily it's still avaiable on the second hand market. After a few years of searching and testing I think I've found my "golden" camera line up for the three film sizes wich I love. And I'm close to finding my favourite, still in production, films also so I can start to streamline my workflow.

It just feels great when pictures like this just "pop" out of my negative, not great shots but it's a style wich I like and it just comes naturally when I've got an analog camera in my hand.
http://arkiv.sveino.no/image/I0000WE0NGofKyVk
http://arkiv.sveino.no/image/I0000cLWhk5Kp8x8
http://arkiv.sveino.no/image/I0000gV6tFqnflA4
http://arkiv.sveino.no/image/I0000d0kGevokkPk

 

[mdarnton]

In camera metering also isn't a big issue for me. Regardless of the camera in use manual settings are my norm, I typically meter with a handheld once for a given lighting situation.

It's funny you mention that now. In the last couple of weeks I've been shooting [film] out of the studio, which I haven't done for decades, and discovered that I don't at all get along with Nikon's matrix metering, which often thinks too hard for the type of pictures I shoot. It works much better for me to do what I did with my OM-1, 40 years ago: conscious manual metering, center-weighted. At least I know how that works, and can count on it to do the same thing every time.

For some strange reason, I get better exposures when I get to do the thinking.

 

[Ralph Javins]

For some strange reason, I get better exposures when I get to do the thinking.

Good morning;

Thank you for such a simple way to phrase what it takes to be a photographer.