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

[frank]

what exactly is the myth ???
is it that someone who is careful, knows what he is doing
and uses fine grained film, a developer that delivers fine grain,
and enlarging lens that does what it is supposed to do, is able to
print a bigger than 8x10 image on 11x14 paper and it will look
like a 4x5 negative, made with the same care, with the same film
the same developer and equally good enlarger lens and technique
printed to the same aspect ratio ?

You are correct!

This is the myth.

 

[removed account4]

thanks frank i wasn't sure what the myth was ..
i must be really gullible ...

dang, i wish i had some of that KOOL-AID ...

on second thought, i am glad i am not drinking the kool aid
becaues the enlargements i make look pretty good ... good enough that format is not an issue
if i photograph a site, structure, people do editorial work &c ...

and even thought i shoot unto 11x14 i won't use format size as a crutch
and insist my work must be soo good because it was made with a large format camera ...
( like so many people tend to do when they use LF ... if it is lf it has got to be good )

this thread has been enlightening !

 

[flavio81]

and even thought i shoot unto 11x14 i won't use format size as a crutch
and insist my work must be soo good because it was made with a large format camera ...
( like so many people tend to do when they use LF ... if it is lf it has got to be good )

Well, in this country LF sheet film is so expensive, that a photographer must make sure he/she is doing good stuff to justify the cost!

 

[Bill Burk]

Well, for what it's worth I consider Bill to be one of the more creditable sources on this site. As well as a heck of a nice guy. So I look forward to seeing what he can come up with.

It's imperative to always approach problems with an open mind. Especially those where one is most certain one already knows the answers, because that's where the greatest danger of prejudice lies.

We live in a determinative universe. Nothing is inherently unexplainable. Maybe still unknown at times, but never not knowable. Usually when a system appears to be wrong it's not because the known variables are known incorrectly. It's because there are unknown variables that have yet to be correctly identified and factored into the result.

Perhaps this is a teaching moment and I can learn something...



Ken

Thanks.

I'll probably hit a limit.

 

[Bill Burk]

Ok, i want to get in line to participate again in this massive dead-horse-beating...

My view of the subject is: Real Photographers (R.P.) use Large Format cameras....

Good contribution, and a good set of "when to choose what camera"

 

[removed account4]

Well, in this country LF sheet film is so expensive, that a photographer must make sure he/she is doing good stuff to justify the cost!

yes it is excessively expensive here too
or it seems expenisve seeing i have mouths to feed
so i shoot expired ( F+P all formats ) ...
its not for everyone -- but at the moment it is the best i can do ...

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I'll probably hit a limit.

Which would also be a successful outcome in terms of furthering the understanding of the issue. There are no possible bad outcomes to the gathering of data.

(Except for a couple of very close calls by those boys at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project when they attempted to verify the critical mass calculations. That almost turned out epically bad...)

:eek:

Ken

 

[Bill Burk]

but bill, was there someone behind the red curtain ?
and if there was was he ( or she ) using an 8x10 camera ??

Haaa. It was a teenager behind the curtain. Lots of blinking LED's but no camera.

A little explanation...

Yesterday I told him I'd have his back, but instead I left jnanian holding the bag.

I got kidnapped by my kids when I picked them up from school, taken to see a performance of the Wizard of Oz. I was expecting a little show but instead got treated to a sneak preview of the school's major production. The kids led me to the front row. Dorothy's rendition of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" had me in tears. I knew the actors playing the lion and Auntie Em, got to tell the scarecrow it was a great show and then came back here...

I so wanted to work that into this thread somehow but forgot until now.

 

[removed account4]

:w00t:

c-c-c-c-courage

 

[benjiboy]

I have a friend who shoots magazine covers for a well known digital photography magazine who ironically will only accept 10"X 8" colour transparencies from him for publication.

 

[frank]

:w00t:

c-c-c-c-courage

Good canadian band

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FhpezwGtDEg

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Which would also be a successful outcome in terms of furthering the understanding of the issue. There are no possible bad outcomes to the gathering of data.

(Except for a couple of very close calls by those boys at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project when they attempted to verify the critical mass calculations. That almost turned out epically bad...)

Are you insinuating we're experiencing a lithium deuteride miscalculation moment here?

 

[georg16nik]

...My view of the subject is: Real Photographers (R.P.) use Large Format cameras...

In the last decades, I've shot LF once or twice a year. So, i guess i am semi-real photographer (S.R.P.) ?

...Plus you really get forced into thinking it twice before triggering the shutter...

So, are you saying that Real Photographers (R.P.) using LF are retarded and generally uncertain when to fire the shot, e.g. the large format of the small idea?

Large Format Disorder (L.F.D)?

 

[film_man]

thanks frank i wasn't sure what the myth was ..
i must be really gullible ...

dang, i wish i had some of that KOOL-AID ...

on second thought, i am glad i am not drinking the kool aid
becaues the enlargements i make look pretty good ... good enough that format is not an issue
if i photograph a site, structure, people do editorial work &c ...

and even thought i shoot unto 11x14 i won't use format size as a crutch
and insist my work must be soo good because it was made with a large format camera ...
( like so many people tend to do when they use LF ... if it is lf it has got to be good )

this thread has been enlightening !

So basically what you are saying is that you don't use format as a crutch but everyone else does. How enlightening!

Your attitude, arguments and constant snide remarks about people using different equipment have been seen many times before in a similar context where "35mm" is replaced by "digital", "large format" by "film", "crop" vs "full frame" and so on. All quite childish and people pretending to ignore the blinding obvious and pretending that one size fits all just to prove a point that they can do just as good as others with more expensive gear (although the expense point is quite moot as we discussed earlier).

 

[pdeeh]

I don't see anywhere where jnanian says everyone does that.

What I do often see is the assumption that people would only use large format because of the increase in "quality" - i.e. As so often, folk assume that everyone else's reasons to do something are identical to their own.

What threads like this are useful to me for is twofold really: I get to learn some interesting information (thanks Nodda Durma, bill Burk and the like), and I get to have my prejudices confirmed that some people are interested only in winning arguments ...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I don't see anywhere where jnanian says everyone does that.

What I do often see is the assumption that people would only use large format because of the increase in "quality" - i.e. As so often, folk assume that everyone else's reasons to do something are identical to their own.

What threads like this are useful to me for is twofold really: I get to learn some interesting information (thanks Nodda Durma, bill Burk and the like), and I get to have my prejudices confirmed that some people are interested only in winning arguments ...

and others only like their prejudices confirmed

 

[ciniframe]

Are you insinuating we're experiencing a lithium deuteride miscalculation moment here?

Ah come on, give them a break, that shot was only off by a factor of three. And for our next trick we'll vaporize the pacific ocean.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I don't see anywhere where jnanian says everyone does that.

What I do often see is the assumption that people would only use large format because of the increase in "quality" - i.e. As so often, folk assume that everyone else's reasons to do something are identical to their own.

What threads like this are useful to me for is twofold really: I get to learn some interesting information (thanks Nodda Durma, bill Burk and the like), and I get to have my prejudices confirmed that some people are interested only in winning arguments ...

I agree quite a lot with this.

Though, I fought for my opinion many times in the past, I'm getting better at simply letting go. We don't have to prove ourselves to anybody, however it can be interesting to see actual results of such exercises, if only for reference for those who really do care.

The best camera, I think, is the one we enjoy to use the most, and the one we feel gives us what we need (hopefully those criteria are in harmony). This will be completely different for almost all users, which is why there will never be consensus.

Personally, I'm in the camp that 35mm full frame negatives give me good enough print quality up to about 20x enlargement. I've seen enough large prints from 35mm prints in museums and collections that I know I'm not alone. If I happen to have a medium format negative and I only have to make a 10x enlargement to get to the same print size - bonus! But I don't feel like I need it. That Hasselblad sure is nice to shoot with, though, which is the primary reason for me to use it.

There's a point, in my humble opinion, where technical quality is 'good enough'. That point is also different for everybody, which is great! We should all aspire to do what we enjoy and believe to matter.

 

[frank]

Agreed. "Good enough" is a personal, not an absolute standard.

 

[GaryFlorida]

...
Personally, I'm in the camp that 35mm full frame negatives give me good enough print quality up to about 20x enlargement. I've seen enough large prints from 35mm prints in museums and collections that I know I'm not alone. ....

Are these 20x enlargements from 35mm optical prints or digitally sharpened adjusted ink jet prints?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Are these 20x enlargements from 35mm optical prints or digitally sharpened adjusted ink jet prints?

What's an inkjet print?

I do everything in the darkroom.

 

[Bill Burk]

There's a point, in my humble opinion, where technical quality is 'good enough'.

Hopefully I have represented your position fairly.

I don't think in terms of what is 'good enough'. I look for excellence.

And this is where we return to our opening salvo... When everything comes together, be it 35mm or 6x9 or 4x5... I can find qualities of excellence in my prints.

Now my challenge is to see if I can achieve that from a Minox negative.

I did find one negative, riddled with information of literally hundreds, maybe thousands of large format negatives...

 

[blockend]

Now my challenge is to see if I can achieve that from a Minox negative.

How big are you going to print, Bill? In 35mm I've always admired people who can pull off a good 16 x 20", my limit is about 16 x 12" and that usually involves split filtration, pre-fogging, bleached highlights and other monkey business. I reckon 10 x 8" from a Minox is impressive. Are you going bigger?

 

[Bill Burk]

I was just going to do 11x14 but I think I have a couple sheets of 20x24. Maybe I should try it.

By the way, when I said riddled with information... I literally meant it. It's a riddle.

In terms of really sharp Minox negs, I don't have that many because I regarded it as a toy and was usually careless taking pictures.

 

[markbarendt]

... people pretending to ignore the blinding obvious ...

This basis of this thread is an argument about what the definition of "good enough" is.

What you are missing is that the advantages, of any format or tool, aren't necessarily obvious, nor cheap, nor important, nor meaningful, to any other given person.

"Good enough" is a purely personal decision.

For example, since I know how flash works and know how much it can improve my work and I have good lights: I get pissed off at myself when I need to print negatives where I was too lazy to grab and carry a speed light. I like fill flash so much that it is regular to see my fancy Nikon SpeedLight on top of my Holga or tethered via an extension cord at any time of day, that combination creates an incredible tool for creating a fun look that's really easy to print. The negatives are big enough for me to sort easily, and I don't have to worry that the grain is going to compete with my subject matter.

This kit took real work to learn, it takes real faith in and understanding of the limits and strengths of the films I put in it, and to understand how to make the best of the lens. It took hundreds and hundreds of hours to sort and learn and refine all the skills needed to make the kit work well.

In use now though, for me it is a true joy, and I wonder why people sweat so much about exposure and development. Once the film is loaded/chosen, my biggest challenge is simply to remember to focus, beyond that it's P&S with nary a thought about the camera or exposure. I get to think about composition and how I want the light falling and other artsy fartsy stuff like getting my subject to giggle or cry.

I don't see a lot of other guys hauling a kit like this around. That shouldn't be a surprise.