I just don't get the 35mm vs bigger format thing.

[Dan Fromm]

Lessee now. Georg, I pointed out that you don't know everything. Your response was to pound the table. Not good.

And then you insulted the poeple at MP. Even worse. Unlike Zeiss they documented their procedures and explained how to replicate them.

Do you know what Kodak's High Contrast Copy Film was? It was Kodak's microfilm developed for continuous tone.

And do you know that at one time Agfa Copex was sold in the US as H&W Control Film with a developer that gave continuous tone negatives, H&W said, when the film was exposed at ASA (= ISO) 80 or so? Back then Leicanuts used the film/developer combination to assert Leica lenses and Leica RF cameras focusing accuracy were superior to all others. The shots used to "prove" the assertion were taken handheld, often with wide open 50/3.5 Elmars.

There was a lot of craziness in those days. What a pity its still with us. I'm disappointed that the Minox nuts aren't bombarding us with claims that with the right film a Minox is competitive with an 8 x 10 camera. Where's Martin Tai when we need him for comic relief?

Cheers,

Dan

 

[Bill Burk]

I'm disappointed that the Minox nuts aren't bombarding us with claims that with the right film a Minox is competitive with an 8 x 10 camera.

Dan Fromm,

You're disappointed I'm not bombarding?

Are those numbers in the Modern Photography articles line pairs per millimeter or lines per millimeter?

I agree not using a tripod can cost 50% resolution. And taking a focus series sounds like a good plan to get the maximum resolution.

I am finding some of my prints lack critical sharpness due to camera movement, others show it due to focus errors (The Minox is scale focus so unless you are taking a close-up using the chain, the focus is subject to human errors in estimating distance).

 

[Dan Fromm]

Bill Burk, I'm sorry I didn't know you were a Minox nut. I also regret that I haven't read the entire discussion and have no idea whether you've suggested that its impossible to get a better large print from an 8x10 than from a Minox. Mr. Tai used to argue that what could be done with larger formats could be done equally well with a Minox. If he were here he'd certainly have made the assertion. He was very sure of himself and of Minoxes' capability.

l/mm vs. lp/mm? Count on your fingers and you'll realize that lp/mm = l/mm - 1. 1 finger = 1 line, 2 fingers with a space between them = 1 line pair. Which unit of measure MP used doesn't matter.

Re scale focus vs. rangefinder vs. focusing TTL, legend has it that "Hollywood" uses tape measures and lenses with well-calibrated focus scales. Why guess when you can measure?

I disagreed with Georg about two points. Existence of fast normal lenses for 6x9 cameras (and I got the focal lengths wrong, the ones I mentioned are all 100 mm, shame on me) and diffraction-limited resolutions at f/8 and f/11. He was mistaken on both. He came back at me with the 110/2.0 Planar for modern (relatively) Hasselblads with focal plane shutters. As far as I know that lens covers only 6x6 and Georg's post that I responded to was about 6x9. Another error on his part. I didn't even mention my 4"/2.0 TTH because although it covers 6x9 it is quite uncommon and can be used on few cameras.

I also pointed out that getting incredible resolution on film isn't easy and gave links to an article that demonstrated practical limits. Georg's response indicated that he doesn't know much about the films I grew up with. Ah, youth!

Cheers,

Dan

 

[Bill Burk]

Bill Burk, I'm sorry I didn't know you were a Minox nut. I also regret that I haven't read the entire discussion and have no idea whether you've suggested that its impossible to get a better large print from an 8x10 than from a Minox. Mr. Tai used to argue...

No need to apologize, the discussion is a long one.

I remember H&W Control but never used it... Didn't realize it was rebranded Agfa Copex.

It would be fun to have Martin Tai contribute.

Meanwhile I'm taking his position... This is what I said (and what I'm currently attempting to demonstrate):

A Minox negative and an 8x10 negative produce the same amount of detail in a 20x24 silver gelatin enlargement.

 

[Dan Fromm]

It would be fun to have Martin Tai contribute.

Meanwhile I'm taking his position... This is what I said (and what I'm currently attempting to demonstrate):

A Minox negative and an 8x10 negative produce the same amount of detail in a 20x24 silver gelatin enlargement.

Bill, I dunno about Martin. Way back when he was very good at incoherent rants. I hope his English is better now and that he's calmer too.

Re Minox vs. 8x10, 8 x 11 mm ==> 20 x 24 inches is roughly a 60x enlargement. 8 x 10 inches ==> 20 x 24 inches is roughly a 2.5x enlargement. If 8 lp/mm in the final print is the minimum acceptable the Minox neg will have have 480 lp/mm with decent contrast. The 8x10 will need 20 lp/mm. 20 lp/mm is easy to get, 400 is a real problem. You'll have to handicap the 8x10 considerably.

Many are the ways to get the desired result, i.e., cheat. 8x10 pinhole, badly focused 8x10 enlarger, ... If you started from an outstanding Minox shot and an 8x10 pinhole shot the Minox might win. Fuzzy and fuzzier. How do you intend to do the trial? Is Georg going to help you?

 

[Alan Gales]

A Minox negative and an 8x10 negative produce the same amount of detail in a 20x24 silver gelatin enlargement.

On what planet?

I'm sorry. I reread your post and realize you are jesting.

 

[Bill Burk]

Re Minox vs. 8x10, 8 x 11 mm ==> 20 x 24 inches is roughly a 60x enlargement. 8 x 10 inches ==> 20 x 24 inches is roughly a 2.5x enlargement. If 8 lp/mm in the final print is the minimum acceptable the Minox neg will have have 480 lp/mm with decent contrast. The 8x10 will need 20 lp/mm. 20 lp/mm is easy to get, 400 is a real problem. You'll have to handicap the 8x10 considerably.
...
How do you intend to do the trial? Is Georg going to help you?

Thanks Dan Fromm,

Very well stated.

I'm on my own.

I made a half-dozen 11x14 prints from Minox and will either find vintage prints from 4x5 negs or make new prints (the fun part: I used the Minox as a backup camera on a trip where I brought the 4x5 so I have a few prints that are same or similar scene in Minox and 4x5 to compare). I will post these to my gallery. In the thread I'll make a few high-resolution crops to illustrate differences and similarities to discuss. For members, I'll post some reasonably high resolution images directly in the thread from a few selected prints that best tell the story.

 

[Bill Burk]

On what planet?

I'm sorry. I reread your post and realize you are jesting.

Alan Gales,

The claim has more to do with taking a stand beside my best friend and less to do with actual photography.

Still the test I am performing is genuine - its outcome is going to be honest.

I've seen the prints, there is no surprise. The 4x5 really does win.

Unless you take it off the tripod.

 

[Alan Gales]

I've shot tons of 35mm film and I by far mostly used a Contax 139 with Zeiss lenses. I have always felt that 8x10 was as large as I could enlarge and have it look good with 35mm. Occasionally, I could pull off an 11X14 but that had more to do with subject matter than technique. I almost entirely shot color slide or print film and mostly printed Cibachrome.

I hear there are special new 35mm films that allow you to print larger but after I bought my first medium format camera I didn't look back except for shooting my Stereo Realist 35mm camera. I now own an 8x10 with both 8x10 and 4x5 backs and no longer shoot medium format. I have a Fujifilm X100s and a Nikon D300 for the rest.

My advice is to shoot what you like. It's all good.

 

[Alan Gales]

Alan Gales,

The claim has more to do with taking a stand beside my best friend and less to do with actual photography.

Still the test I am performing is genuine - its outcome is going to be honest.

I've seen the prints, there is no surprise. The 4x5 really does win.

Unless you take it off the tripod.

Bill, get you a 4x5 Crown Graphic or converted Polaroid so you don't need the tripod!

Seriously, I can't understanding shooting expensive 4x5 large format handheld. I could easily get better results with a medium format camera.

I am interested in seeing your Minox results. At one time I was going to buy a Minox and for some reason I never got around to it.

 

[Bill Burk]

I do use a converted Polaroid. On a tripod.

When I use it handheld, I understand that I am getting results no better than a 35mm camera.

At that point, I am shooting because it is the camera I have in my hands.

 

[Alan Gales]

I do use a converted Polaroid. On a tripod.

When I use it handheld, I understand that I am getting results no better than a 35mm camera.

At that point, I am shooting because it is the camera I have in my hands.

I believe it. At one time I could shoot my 35mm handheld at 1/30 of a second with no problem. I have trouble with 1/60 now and set my digital cameras to 1/125 or faster. I'm only 53 but have had a back fusion so my back plays a lot into it. Of course a tripod is a photographer's best friend.

 

[Bill Burk]

I believe it. At one time I could shoot my 35mm handheld at 1/30 of a second with no problem. I have trouble with 1/60 now and set my digital cameras to 1/125 or faster. I'm only 53 but have had a back fusion so my back plays a lot into it. Of course a tripod is a photographer's best friend.

At one time I was thinking of creating a "1/60 at f/5.6 Group" - the Kodachrome 25 setting on a perfect day.

But I can't tell you how many slides I ruined by handholding... when the tripod was right at my shoulder.

A tripod is a photographer's best friend.

 

[Alan Gales]

At one time I was thinking of creating a "1/60 at f/5.6 Group" - the Kodachrome 25 setting on a perfect day.

But I can't tell you how many slides I ruined by handholding... when the tripod was right at my shoulder.

A tripod is a photographer's best friend.

Back in the day, Kodachrome 25 was my favorite film. I always used a tripod. When hand holding I shot the fast speed Kodachrome 64 film.

It was sometimes a bitch. I shot the contrasty Zeiss lenses with the Kodachrome 25 and printed with Cibachrome. Some slides looked great projected but were too contrasty to print. I had to send them out for an internegative and print made. Of course you lost quality with the interneg and were better off shooting print film. I learned over time what I could get away with. I'm a huge fan of polarizing screens.

 

[polyglot]

At one time I was thinking of creating a "1/60 at f/5.6 Group" - the Kodachrome 25 setting on a perfect day.

What, with a polariser on?

 

[Bill Burk]

What, with a polariser on?

I know... It's not sunny 16.

It was a long time ago, but the shutter and f/stop are absolutely what I remember were my favorite.

Best guess... I loved color on an overcast day.

 

[Alan Gales]

Best guess... I loved color on an overcast day.

Especially after it just rained.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

About this thread:
This debate was held in the 20s when the first 35mm came to the market and was over when Walter Benser started projecting slides on a huge screen or on a ceiling.
It was definitely over when David Bailey started using 35mm instead of Medium Format for his fashion shots.

I don't know why is it being debated again.
Go out, there's a marathon somewhere today, go shooting whatever format you want.
Just use film, any film.

[h=1](there was a url link here which no longer exists)[/h]

Sincerely, nor do I.

 

[Alan Gales]

Go out, there's a marathon somewhere today, go shooting whatever format you want.
Just use film, any film.

Amen!

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I don't know why is it being debated again.

The inconvenient truth?

Because some people's standards are higher than others, and other people's standards are too high.

Ken

 

[Alan Gales]

The OP doesn't see a difference between 35mm and medium format at the size he prints at. He asked our opinions and like Ken says, some of us are more picky than others. Myself, I would be guilty of being picky but whatever. Shoot what you like.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I made a half-dozen 11x14 prints from Minox and will either find vintage prints from 4x5 negs or make new prints (the fun part: I used the Minox as a backup camera on a trip where I brought the 4x5 so I have a few prints that are same or similar scene in Minox and 4x5 to compare). I will post these to my gallery. In the thread I'll make a few high-resolution crops to illustrate differences and similarities to discuss. For members, I'll post some reasonably high resolution images directly in the thread from a few selected prints that best tell the story.

Hello Bill - I didn't know you were a Minox user. Last month I bought my very first one and I'm eager to use it (I have Ektar 100 and Delta 400).

At home I have three favorite 16x20 prints, one of which is a photo I made in the Columbia River Gorge in 1999. I chose Kodak Tech Pan at ASA 25 and was using a 500C/M with a 50mm CF FLE, on a tripod, pre-released, probably at f/5.6, with a yellow filter. Anyway, the print (my attempt at emulating Ansel Adams) is spectacular. As for resolution, the photo was taken from a bluff I believe is called Crown Point - it overlooks the river as it winds eastward into the distance; there is a highway following the river and in the most distant part I can see individual cars. Looking at a map, I see those cars are 4.6 miles away (straight line distance). Yes, I do have to stand inches away from the print to see that, but they're there. The other two are color prints of Portland from the hills to the west - again, I'm surprised at the detail seen in buildings and houses miles away.

Well, I'm not expecting that level of detail from my Minox; I will be happy with a sharp-looking 5x7.

Please do post your Minox results; I'm hoping they look very good.

 

[lxdude]

Best guess... I loved color on an overcast day.

Must've been that.

Going the other direction, I once by mistake exposed a roll of K25 at at ASA 64. It was at Big Sur. It came out deeply saturated and gorgeous.

 

[georg16nik]

....
l/mm vs. lp/mm? Count on your fingers and you'll realize that lp/mm = l/mm - 1. 1 finger = 1 line, 2 fingers with a space between them = 1 line pair. Which unit of measure MP used doesn't matter......

Yeah, what matters is the irrelevancy of their results in regards to the films tested by Zeiss Camera Lens Division.

....
I disagreed with Georg about two points. Existence of fast normal lenses for 6x9 cameras (and I got the focal lengths wrong, the ones I mentioned are all 100 mm, shame on me) and diffraction-limited resolutions at f/8 and f/11. He was mistaken on both....

Read what I wrote carefully, @ f/11 even the best MF lens is limited to less than 100 lp/mm on film, under normal contrast.
In regards to “fast” lenses for 6x9, I've excluded the fastest one in 35mm as well, since this is not what most people own.
In MF the affordable fast ones start @ ~ f/3,5, while in 35mm ~ f/1,5.

 

[Bill Burk]

As for resolution, I think there is a difference whether you count lines or lines with the spaces in between (That's why I asked).

I think the value needs to be doubled.

For example, I would use this formula to translate to a term I can work with easily - dots per inch (DPI).

DPI (dots per inch) = lp/mm * 25.4 mm/inch * 2 lines per line pair

Taking Dan Fromm's example acceptable print resolution of 8 line pairs per millimeter, times 25.4 to convert to inches is 203 line pairs per inch.

But to acquire this detail using modern graphic art equipment requires two lines per line pair.

406 DPI is required if I want to show 8 line pairs per mm.

One of my acquisition devices has a native resolution of 300 DPI so I can't use that device.

I will overcome this by using a copystand and macro lens and get close for a cropped view. This seems capable of over 2000 DPI by my calculation, but I wonder if I will actually be able to show as much as 1000 DPI (due to technique/lighting etc).