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

[2F/2F]

(and, I hope, kill this thread)...

...exactly...

 

[2F/2F]

... and this soap box was filled with what kind of smoke???

Smoke blown out of the polar bears' arses, of course...

 

[Sirius Glass]

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..................

Now your are ready for Southern Comfort* poured over vanilla ice cream with fresh peaches on the side.

[Southern Comfort is technically not a whiskey or bourbon, but a liqueur.]

Steve

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Comfort

 

[Mike1234]

Ohooooo.... HELLL YESSS!!

 

[JBrunner]

Making a little tiny platinum print from a 135 is a pain. Actually, I think I'm gonna try it. Where can I get little tiny mats and frames?

 

[Mike1234]

Making a little tiny platinum print from a 135 is a pain. Actually, I think I'm gonna try it. Where can I get little tiny mats and frames?

From the eastern side.

Even the cows run in fear from us old cow-poke....

 

[Sirius Glass]

From the eastern side.

Even the cows run in fear from us old cow-poke....

Speak for yourself, Slick!

 

[clayne]

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.

No. It's not. This has to do with the signal (light) is put down on the medium (film). This isn't something you can do after the fact - and it's an inherent benefit of analog: saturation and compression.

The other huge elephant in the room here is that a lot of people here actually want to be around the computer less! In a completely digitally driven society with an always-on element as a daily part of life it's not surprising that people would like to (atleast temporarily) remove that dependence entirely.

Repeat with me: You do not need a computer to create photographs.

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.

Back to our original thread now...

Yes, if the detail is there, this is something a lot of people do - it's a novelty. However, it's not required, and if it's not there - no sane minded person who is able to view an image subjectively or emotionally will cease looking at it because of a lack of microscopic detail.

Ever put on a record or CD around friends? Does everyone gather around and swoon over how sharp the highs are or how crisp the whatever is? That's not listening to music.

 

[Ian David]

Making a little tiny platinum print from a 135 is a pain. Actually, I think I'm gonna try it. Where can I get little tiny mats and frames?

I cannot remember the name of the store, but I know they also sell cheap underwater housings for view cameras.

 

[Mike1234]

No. It's not. This has to do with the signal (light) is put down on the medium (film). This isn't something you can do after the fact - and it's an inherent benefit of analog: saturation and compression.

Yeah... okay... some will... and ALWAYS be... RIGHT.

 

[JBrunner]

Yeah... okay... some will... and ALWAYS be... RIGHT.

For my 2cents, aping something isn't the same as that something. Kind of like wearing a fake expensive watch and telling yourself no one will notice, and most might not. That doesn't make it real.

 

[clayne]

Yeah... okay... some will... and ALWAYS be... RIGHT.

Seriously though, read up on tape saturation. It's the only analog (analogy) I can think of that succinctly explains it without getting into a huge dynamic range discussion.

In short: our eyes and perception are quite comfortable with analog.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Do not expect logic or facts from Mike, he still has not looked up color gamut. If he had, he would have seen that he has given up more than half the colors that the eye can see by going digital. That is just one of several big advantages of film or digital. So rather than get into a film versus digital flame war, just humor him.

Steve

 

[keithwms]

A microwave?! Are you crazy? No nukes for me.

All it's doing is exciting the water molecules. Your squash will not be offended, I promise! Anyway, I did provide a pure-oven alternative.

One other interesting variation: throw a chopped up apple into the broth, it will add a bit of sweetness and flavour compatible with the butternut.

 

[BrianShaw]

Making a little tiny platinum print from a 135 is a pain. Actually, I think I'm gonna try it. Where can I get little tiny mats and frames?

Is this a serious question? If so, I got some frames that size at Michael's Art Supplies. I put 135 and 6x6 cyanotypes in them, so I suppose they will work for Platinum prints just as well.

If that was not a serious question, then "ha, Ha, HA!"

 

[Mike1234]

At the risk of further aping... what is the max DR of a final print?

 

[keithwms]

At the risk of further aping... what is the max DR of a final print?

DMax-Min is approximately 2.10379 on RC glossy. Funny though, there doesn't seem to be any correlation between this number and what people will pay for a print.

 

[Mike1234]

...and what is the max DR of "digital garbage" as it relates to final print?

 

[JBrunner]

lets put this back to topic. mea culpa.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

lets put this back to topic. mea culpa.

Thank you.

 

[ciocc]

I have LF, MF and SF. When hiking/backpacking in the Sierra's, I take the SF camera. It's light with no bulk. The MF/LF stuff is just too bulky and heavy. Even when traveling on a plane, I usually grab the SF camera, although recently I'm grabbing the Autocord. I'm *amazed* at the ability of folks here to make sharp 11X14 prints or larger from SF negatives. My 8x10's from 35mm look horrible to me. However, when lugging a 40-50 pound pack over an 11,000 foot pass, I'm happy I have the Nikon EM with me, not the Bronica or Wehman 8x10. I'll accept a sharp 4x6/5x7 print in exchange for the reduction in weight. One of these days I'm going to figure out how you folks make sharp 11X14/16x20's from 35mm. Note: I understand sharpness isn't everything for everyone. I shoot primarily landscapes, so what little details there are in the pic (from 35mm negatives) I want to be sharp.

 

[Perry Way]

I went back and re-read my philosophical babbling on this topic and I think it sounded a wee bit unfair to the 35mm film size. At the moment, my main thrust photographically speaking is all centered around two things, Pinhole photography (large format exclusively), and Bromoil. Probably the most notable Bromoilist of USA, Gene Laughter, has mentioned in many settings that he frequently works with 35mm negatives for his masterful bromoil creations, some of which are cropped even. I decided to give 35mm a try, specifically for bromoil prints, and I was very impressed. It lends itself well to the process:

 

[Ihmemies]

35mm is convenient and quick so I use it most of the time. When needed (landscapes, studio etc.) I bring my Mamiya RZ. You can get good prints from a 35mm neg/slide already, and usually it's not worth for me to haul around more bulky equipment which requires external light metering, a tripod, manual focusing etc. It takes AGES to shoot a medium format frame, so I only do it when I really want the quality and can benefit from it.

Because gear is so cheap these days it's not a big deal to have both systems availabe.

 

[Clockwerk]

It takes AGES to shoot a medium format frame,

Really? Large format, yes, but medium format? It doesn't take much longer than 35mm. Of course that depends on the subject, lighting and so on, but the main thing that slows me up when using my 6x9 folder is having to change roll every eight exposures.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

It takes AGES to shoot a medium format frame, so I only do it when I really want the quality and can benefit from it.

Really? Large format, yes, but medium format? It doesn't take much longer than 35mm. Of course that depends on the subject, lighting and so on, but the main thing that slows me up when using my 6x9 folder is having to change roll every eight exposures.

Speed is a function of transparency. If you have
internalized the workings of your instrument, you
will work quickly and effortlessly with it. I shot
only a view camera for years, and I work quickly
with it now. I wince every time I hear someone
say they've moved to large format because it
forced them to slow down. That tells me they
don't know their tool yet.