• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

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


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
 
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?
 
JBrunner said:
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?
Click to expand...
From the eastern side.

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JBrunner said:
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?
Click to expand...

I cannot remember the name of the store, but I know they also sell cheap underwater housings for view cameras.
 
clayne said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah... okay... some will... and ALWAYS be... RIGHT.
 
Mike1234 said:
Yeah... okay... some will... and ALWAYS be... RIGHT.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mike1234 said:
Yeah... okay... some will... and ALWAYS be... RIGHT.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
FilmOnly said:
A microwave?! Are you crazy? No nukes for me.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JBrunner said:
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?
Click to expand...

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!"
 
lets put this back to topic. mea culpa.
 
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.
 
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:

 
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.
 
Ihmemies said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register