Thank you as you are doing all the work!
Thanks Les Sarile!
I didn't see any difference between 35mm and larger formats because mostly I just shot 35mm. Then about a year ago I got an 8x10 camera. The disappointment of seeing 8x10 prints from 35mm and 8x10 on the same wall has resulted in me not running more than two rolls of 35mm in the last year. However, if you don't see the difference, then there's no difference for you.
...But something went wrong when I took the 4x5 shot. I lost my cable release earlier in the day so I found myself improvising and tugging at the shutter release with a grass lasso. The tug caused camera shake...
Nice to see your photos, Bill.
Hopefully you're still using your Minox as well? I'm hoping for nice results with mine.
For me the answer is 'it depends'. I shoot HP5, FP4, velvia, provia and Portra 160 and 400 in both 35mm (Nikon) and 120 (RB67). If I take Portra 160 and send it off to the lab, then I see no real difference in 5"x7" prints between 35mm and 120, so the extra convenience of a smaller camera, faster lenses wins out. If I get enlargements made of transparency, then there is no real difference for 10"x8" prints I hang on the wall when viewed at normal distance. When close up there is. By 12"x16" prints the difference is very obvious even at normal viewing distances. For monochrome, it's rather different. There is something about a print made from 120 that is obvious even at 6"x4" prints, it looks like sharpness but it isn't, it's the way the tones spread into one another. I'm sure others are better at describing this than me. So when I can, it's MF for monochrome and MF for big enlargements and 35mm for standard prints up to 10"x8". Of course, sometimes grain is good, so it's 35mm again. The trouble is, it's too damn heavy to take both 35mm and MF kit out at the same time, so I have to decide what I want before I go, but I confess that more and more it's the RB67 that gets taken out, especially now that I've found a good backpack for taking it.
Great post. Your experience is same as mine; with color negative the 35mm prints (to 8x11") are pretty good anyways, and sharp.
I salute you in bringing out the RB67. I also take it out for a long walk from time to time. There are many people who believe that the RB67 is a big beast that should only be confined to the studio, but I find it a very handholdable, easy to operate camera that wants to be taken outside.
Isn't the horse dead yet?
Isn't the horse dead yet? For me, it's as simple as: if you wish to have a technically "high definition" look in your photo, (rendering of fine detail and rich tonality) the easiest and best way to achieve this look is with medium format film as opposed to 135 format.
For my eyes there's no contest. Years ago I had a Leica M3 and the 50 f/2 Summicron as well as the 90 and 35 lens. I also had(and have) several Nikons. I wanted to do studio work-portraits/bridal shoots and weddings and after attending one of Ed Pierce's Wedding seminars determined the MF was the only way to go.
I had shot portraits and weddings with the Nikons using both color and B&W but didn't like the results that much-especially when someone wanted an 11x14. I ended up trading the Leica for a Pentax 6x7 and several LS lens. I never looked back. The color and sharpness was far and away light years better than even the Leica. Even the 8x10 prints were superb and I found I could go to 16x20 prints and they looked as good or better that 35mm would with a 5x7.
Love the 35mm obviously as I have five of them but for quality enlargements a 6x7 negative is going to win out every time...larger negative, less grain, more sharpness.
...wandering discussion of the relative merits of trying to achieve high resolution results in everyday photography.
For my eyes there's no contest. Years ago I had a Leica M3 and the 50 f/2 Summicron as well as the 90 and 35 lens. I also had(and have) several Nikons. I wanted to do studio work-portraits/bridal shoots and weddings and after attending one of Ed Pierce's Wedding seminars determined the MF was the only way to go.
I had shot portraits and weddings with the Nikons using both color and B&W but didn't like the results that much-especially when someone wanted an 11x14. I ended up trading the Leica for a Pentax 6x7 and several LS lens. I never looked back. The color and sharpness was far and away light years better than even the Leica. Even the 8x10 prints were superb and I found I could go to 16x20 prints and they looked as good or better that 35mm would with a 5x7.
Love the 35mm obviously as I have five of them but for quality enlargements a 6x7 negative is going to win out every time...larger negative, less grain, more sharpness.
Aren't there a limited number of steps one could take towards this end, such as:
Slower film for smaller grain for given format
Larger format for less enlargement for given print size
Tripod for less camera movement
Lenses with conservative apertures or designs given towards high res/sharpness rather than speed
Stopping down to optimum apertures for the taking lens
Developer optimized towards resolution/sharpness/acutance rather than speed
Or is this oversimplifying things? Obviously one would have to choose how large of a format is acceptable for them (or their back!) to carry every day.
Shhh... Please stop trying to be logical. You're fanning the flames again.
Aren't there a limited number of steps one could take towards this end, such as:
Slower film for smaller grain for given format
Larger format for less enlargement for given print size
Tripod for less camera movement
Lenses with conservative apertures or designs given towards high res/sharpness rather than speed
Stopping down to optimum apertures for the taking lens
Developer optimized towards resolution/sharpness/acutance rather than speed
Or is this oversimplifying things? Obviously one would have to choose how large of a format is acceptable for them (or their back!) to carry every day.
The modern colour negative films are spectacularly better than thd films of even 30 years ago.
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?