It doesn't help shooting them out in the world either. We shoot film cameras... The rest of the world thinks we're idiots...
But shooting 6x7 or LF for bragging rights? I shoot those cameras in the studio the models, clients, and makeup artists have seen a million of 'em.
18 Pages from a sort-of troll-ey thread.
Anyone regular on APUG knows that this sort of question generates well, 18 pages.
lol ...Ha ha... sorry yours is so small.
Ya know I'm just playin', right?
If you can't see the tonality and overall look difference between 35mm and something like 6x7 or 4x5 then...well ok, whatever suits you.
I went through this exercise a few years back. Visited my mom and in the backyard hang several pots of Epiphyllums - I shoot in my 35mm OM-1 with 40mm f/2 at f/11... And I shoot the exact same scene using my 4x5 with 135mm f/4.7 at f/32
In both cases I get 7 feet to infinity in focus.
Different circles of confusion apply because the 4x5 enjoys less enlargement.
But how do I get from f/11 to f/32? Doesn't shutter speed have to change.
Well, that's one way.
Or I could change to a faster film for the 4x5
Different circles of confusion apply because the 4x5 enjoys less enlargement.
hi film_man
i would guess that a lot of people can't see the subtle differnces between 35mm, 120 and 4x5 at moderate enlargement ( like 8x10 or between 8x10 and 11x14 ) ..
that said, i don't have an axe to grind i don't need to prove to anyone or show anyone how sharp my negatives or prints are
because the reason i make photographs isn't to have epic sharpness or epic tonality or any of the reasons a lot of people flock to diferent formats.
i use whatever i have handy, whether that is half frame or something larger, and i don't worry about it there are too many other things in life to worry about.
currently i am using a very large camera, not because of sharpness or the ability to enlarge to a billboard size image, or for bragging rights, but because its fun,
and i think fun trumps all ...
I can see the difference in tonality even in small prints, so if someone can't see or doesn't care I don't see why they go about justifying by characterising those that do see it with some less than positive light.
I don't understand this, can you explain this please? Specifically, what do you mean by 'enjoys less enlargement'?
Thanks and regards,
Rob
I am forever seeing remarks about how much more detail there is in a MF negative compared to 35mm. Funny thing is, I seldom see it! We're talking about my own negs and photos here, not what I see on a monitor screen. Maybe it's because I've always tried to use really good lenses in 35mm. Or maybe its because my developing and printing protocol is dependable these days. Whatever it is, I'm not seeing it. Yes, the Leica negs are a little grainier than the ones from the Rolleiflex, but that's part of the bargain.
Even when I look at shots from my brief foray into LF, assuming that 4x5 is really LF (looks pretty puny compared to 8x10), I'm not seeing it, and those were made w/ a 203 Kodak Ektar lens. Are people commenting on the sharpness of their large prints? Some of my 35mm negs are printed full frame to 12x18, and on a good day, w/ a tail wind and a good lens, you can get a good print that size from 35mm, w/ the understanding that there will be more grain. I REALLY don't see much difference between 120 and 4x5. In my own work, detail is more about using fine grained film, using the right developer, and the right paper for the print. What's up?
... so if someone can't see or doesn't care I don't see why they go about justifying by characterising those that do see it with some less than positive light.
Ok, so, since LF is enlarged less, it's can withstand larger circles of confusion than smaller formats. This allows a larger aperture in LF to capture the same effective DoF at the same print size relative to a smaller format? If so, this would translate into better low-light performance for LF?
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
I may be misreading what you say here, but one advantage small formats have over LF is DOF at the taking stage, so I don't really get this, or what you say about better low-light performance.
I may be misreading what you say here, but one advantage small formats have over LF is DOF at the taking stage, so I don't really get this, or what you say about better low-light performance.
Ok, so, since LF is enlarged less, it's can withstand larger circles of confusion than smaller formats.
This allows a larger aperture in LF to capture the same effective DoF at the same print size relative to a smaller format? If so, this would translate into better low-light performance for LF?
becaise i thnk it is all BS .. ?
and i honestly believe people like to justify
their expensive gear by making claims that the differences are so blatently obvious.
when in many instances they are not ...
But the rest doesn't follow...
f/11 on the 40mm lens appears to have an aperture opening that measures about 3.5 - 4 mm looking from the front.
f/32 on the 135mm lens also has about the same opening size
f/32 is worse low-light performance so Large Format has to give the advantage of low-light performance to the smaller formats.
Well the cheapest camera I own is my RB67. That is also the largest format I own. So your argument about justifying expensive gear says more about your prejudices than anything else. I will call BS as some people like to pretend they are the cool kids on the block because, in their mind, think they do what others do with lesser/cheaper/older/insert-whatever-here equipment, when they don't really. But hey, if that's what floats their boat whatevs.
Anyway, I'm not in the business of miracles so I can't make a blind person see and frankly I don't care. You shoot your small format and think you're the cool dude (TM), I shoot various formats and enjoy them all. And that's that.
This whole thread has to be a troll.
May as well be saying Porsches aren't any faster than Corollas because Porsches don't improve commute time, and that whilst no-ones denying there's a slight difference, that you need open road to reveal it.
This whole thread has to be a troll.
May as well be saying Porsches aren't any faster than Corollas because Porsches don't improve commute time, and that whilst no-ones denying there's a slight difference, that you need open road to reveal it.
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?