If Medium Format and Large Format are Better, Why Do We Bother with 35mm?

Q.G.

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
5,535
Location
Netherlands
Format
Medium Format

Finally!

Finally you jumped on the same horse i am riding.
The one you perhaps still think "fell down a couple of pages ago".

Should i offer to explain it again after all?
 

clayne

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
2,764
Location
San Francisc
Format
Multi Format

I think you're totally missing the point. Film isn't entirely about sharpness. Analog mediums are incredibly expressive and non-linear in response - each with their own character. It's definitely annoying how often people ignore this vastly important trait. Ever check the contrast or HD curves of the latest DSLRs? Ever look at their toe and shoulder response curves? Of course you haven't - they work only in the linear response realm - with no inherent ability (other than electricity) to saturate the input signal. That is a huge part of the look of film - sharpness is merely an aspect of the process and grain-size.

Please remember that quite a significant amount of world-changing photographs and bodies of work were/are done with 35mm film.

Not everything has to be about the sharpest rendition of rocks on a hill complete with dramatic skies. There ARE other important fields of photography, focusing on the human element, that don't require utmost sharpness - but definitely benefit from film.

SomeOtherGuy said:
But if you're looking to enlarge to 20x24, and not have very obvious grain from a common viewing distance, 35mm is just not going to fill the bill.
Click to expand...

Huh? People don't view 20x24s at the same distance they view 8x10s. Try again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mike1234

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
1,908
Location
South Texas,
Format
4x5 Format

If you're dead-set against digital that's one thing. But if you're open to the idea then pretty much any film or lens "character" can be emulated in PS. Let's face it... "character" of any given film or lens is a form of "distortion"... and it's fine to desire them. My point is that, IMHO, it's better to get the most accurate detail as is practicable on film and/or disc and manipulate (distort) at will in PS.

All the large prints I've made have been inspected closely for fine detail by most viewers. They see the prints from afar and move in progressivley closer to see fine details. Of course, if the image data isn't there they stop moving in.

That stated, not everyone cares about or even likes that much detail. Heck, this is why painters such as Monet and Van Goch are popular with their impressionistic styles. If they were photographers they probably would have shot with 135 and Petzvals.
 

Q.G.

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
5,535
Location
Netherlands
Format
Medium Format

I rather think that if they were photographers, they would hurry to get rid of their cameras and pick up a brush.
 

keithwms

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
6,220
Location
Charlottesvi
Format
Multi Format
This discussion seems to be going off in some totally tangential directions. If the purpose is to have an intelligent discussion on these other subjects, I suggest starting a different thread. Right now it's hard to make any sense of the discussion!
 

Q.G.

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
5,535
Location
Netherlands
Format
Medium Format

Is it?
I see most posts still dealing with the original question, the one about the right tool for the job.

You see, "Not all those who wander are lost" ...
 

keithwms

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
6,220
Location
Charlottesvi
Format
Multi Format
Well... we are ~20 pages into the thread and people are saying basically the same things over and over and then quoting what has already been said.... and pushing the topic into totally different directions e.g. whether character can be mimicked by PS etc....

I mean, don't let me poop on your party but I, for one, can't tell what the is being said by whom. And no concrete examples have been offered...

And... some who wander really are lost not all... but some.
 

2F/2F

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
8,031
Location
Los Angeles,
Format
Multi Format
I agree with Keith's last post.

The answer is simple: Those of us who still "bother" rolleyes with 35mm do so because we feel like it.

See my initial post way back in the thread as well. I stated my answer there too:

"Because I like the pix that I (and others) get from it."

Those are my answers to the original post. It really is that simple for me. I try to use tools that I feel are best suited to the job at hand, and quite often, this is 35mm for me.
 

keithwms

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
6,220
Location
Charlottesvi
Format
Multi Format
...and that is all that needs to be said, ultimately. If every artist had to provide a logical, quantitative, universally accepted answer for why they create their art, well, then there'd be no art. As usual, the answer is to do what works for you; use whatever tools make you feel productive. Does a thread need 20 pages to make that point???
 

Q.G.

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
5,535
Location
Netherlands
Format
Medium Format
Nope.

But on the other hand, if every artist did not want to think about and discuss why and how they create their art, would they be on APUG?
 

2F/2F

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
8,031
Location
Los Angeles,
Format
Multi Format
Q.G. said:
Nope.

But on the other hand, if every artist did not want to think about and discuss why and how they create their art, would they be on APUG?
Click to expand...

That is a good question...but it probably deserves its own thread...then I would be glad to discuss it in depth! I think the answers to it are numerous, and many of them obvious. There are plenty of reasons to be here other than discussing "art" and one's own "work". If I want to talk about that stuff in depth (which I really do not, most of the time.....), I have my own circle in which I can do it face to face with people I know. I come here for more technical reasons, personally.
 

keithwms

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
6,220
Location
Charlottesvi
Format
Multi Format
Since we are off topic already, I will offer, as a conciliatory gesture, my recipe for ultra-quick butternut squash soup, which has been refined for some time and is now requested quite often by friends:

Serves: 4
Total time to prepare: 15-20 mins
Ingredients:
Two butternut squashes
Two cloves of garlic
One medium sized mild onion
1/4 cup butter or olive oil
1 cup half & half (or milk if you prefer)
fresh cilantro
1/2 cup slivered almonds
1 cup chicken broth
salt and pepper to taste
optional flavours: cardamom, curry powder

N.b. you will need a blender, a medium sized pot, a microwave and a saute/frying pan. The microwave is the key to banging this out very quickly.

In a pot, dilute the chicken broth approximately 1:3 in water and begin bringing it to a boil. Peel the squash, cut it into 1-2" sections and discard the seeds. Microwave the squash for ~3 mins or until fairly tender; alternatively, you could bake the squash until it begins to soften and (even better) has slightly roasted brown, but this procedure adds 10+ minutes.

While the squash nukes, peel and cut up the onion and garlic. Use as much garlic as you wish but I aim for about 1-2 tsp of cuttings.

Afterward softening the squash, transfer it into the boiling broth/water mixture. In a saute pan, saute chopped onion and garlic in butter... both should be permitted to brown slightly. Once sauted, add the almond and allow the flavours to mingle under low heat while the squash softens further in the broth. Combine all ingredients (should take about 5-10 minutes of boiling), and transfer all nonliquids to blender, blend them thoroughly and transfer back to the liquid. The consistency should now be quite soupy.

You can now add the half & half, salt and pepper to taste, and consider further spicing as you wish. I typically go in one of two directions with the final spicing: cardamom for a more muted and traditional taste, or curry powder and white pepper for more zing. Pass the soup through cheesecloth if you want to be fancy, but I normally leave it with a bit of small chunks. Garnish with fresh cilantro (not the stems, just the leaflets).

N.b. you can substitute carrot for the squash; in this case you may wish to add 1/4 cup of orange juice to sweeten the broth. Adding ~ 1 tsp fresh ginger to the saute mix produces a really hearty, wonderful carrot-ginger soup. I do not recommend ginger if you go with butternut, however, the flavour of the squash is too subtle for it. Butternut is also too subtle for cinnamon or nutmeg, in my opinion, cardamom is my preference.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,223
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
In the same vein.

..............​

If you take whiskey [okay, whisky for some], rye, vodka, gin, bourbon, scotch, rum, ... and put it in the freezer. It will not freeze. And then when you mix drinks such as a Martini [Martinus - if you are only having one] or are drinking it straight, you will not need ice. Then the drink will not get poisoned by water because there is no ice to melt. The drink will stay cold for a long time and it will keep its strength.

Steve
 

2F/2F

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
8,031
Location
Los Angeles,
Format
Multi Format
Ah...but some whiskeys are changed (improved, I would say) in character by the perfectly timed introduction of melted ice. No better way to enjoy whiskey than a double on the rocks, IMHO. Bites for the first half, then sweet for the second half. Then you get to eat the ice for dessert! For mixed drinks, I agree....but for straight drinks, the rocks are not just there for their cooling effects...not at all. It is part of the "recipe".
 

Mike1234

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
1,908
Location
South Texas,
Format
4x5 Format
I'm feeling queezy... a little (no a lot) like I'm about to vomit.... PUKE......... PUKE......... PUKE.......... ahhhhh...... I feeeell better now..... the taquila is gone and now all that's left is good ol' southern bourbon... mmmmm..................
 

papagene

Membership Council
Council
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
5,435
Location
Tucson, AZ
Format
Multi Format
Soap Box Radio

To go way off topic (and, I hope, kill this thread)...

Two polar bears were floating downstream in opposite directions. When they spied each other, they wondered who the other was. Within a short distance they recognized each other as old pals. As they came abreast of each other they simultaneously said "Soap Box Radio," smiled and floated on on different directions.

For some reason this story would get us roaring with laughter when I was in high school back in the '60s. :rolleyes:

gene
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…