Us 35mm shooters need a different paper!

chip j · Dec 12, 2016

Something w/a little texture to it to make up for the fact that 35mm has problems achieving high resolution. FB, of course, and something with a gloss/silk finish. Anyone agree?

bernard_L · Dec 12, 2016

chip j said:
a little texture to it to make up for the fact that 35mm has problems achieving high resolution

Grain achieves just that.

Anon Ymous · Dec 12, 2016

There used to be textured papers, some looked like woven fabric, but IIRC their purpose was to mask grain. I've typically seen them used for portraiture.

kobaltus · Dec 12, 2016

With high grade of sparkle and glow probably.

Ricardo Miranda · Dec 12, 2016

Ilford might have such a paper. If they haven't, I'm sure 'Marks & Sparks' would have something like that especially now for Christmas.

John Wiegerink · Dec 12, 2016

Good 35mm lenses have more resolution than either medium format or large format lenses. So, it's not a resolution problem, but a film problem. I've seen the old Kodak Tech-Pan film make some really high resolution prints of very good size. Of course it was very slow film, contrast was hard to tame and mid-tones a little different. Just not your "everyday" B&W film, but it did have it in the resolution and lack of grain department.

removed account4 · Dec 12, 2016

just coat some paper with liquid emulsion,
put it in your 35mm camera
and expose it 1 shot at a time,
THEN after you expose the paper, and develop it,
and put it in a reflective enlarger and enlarge it !
no need for textured enlarging paper, when your negative is textured

David Lyga · Dec 12, 2016

If you were to challenge Kodak's ImageLink microfilm (sorry, NOT perforated) to the task, I think that, as far as resolution and grain were concerned, you would think that you were shooting 4 x 5. - David Lyga

Bob Carnie · Dec 12, 2016

Ilford Art 300 is an excellent textured paper readily available in NA.

ic-racer · Dec 12, 2016

chip j said:
make up for the fact that 35mm has problems achieving high resolution.

?

Ian Grant · Dec 12, 2016

ic-racer said:
?

Maybe the OP needs to see some high resolution 35mm images

Ian

Ko.Fe. · Dec 12, 2016

Ian Grant said:
Maybe the OP needs to see some high resolution 35mm images

Ian

+1.

darkroommike · Dec 12, 2016

The type of paper he's talking about has a lower Dmax and lower resolution due to texture. More suitable to large format negs. large format negs may be shot with lenses with lower intrinsic resolution than 35mm lenses but the magnification is much lower to produce a given print size. This was all established about 1930.

NortheastPhotographic · Dec 12, 2016

I regularly print on Hahnemühle "Fine Art Baryta". It's a glossy, bright white paper with a slightly textured finish. I absolutely love it. It feels like a fiber and doesn't have any of the problems associated with a matte finish. If there were/is a silver gelatine version I wouldn't hesitate to print with it. Although, as others have said, 35mm to me looks great as it is when done well. I just accept it's range of what I consider acceptable.

MattKing · Dec 12, 2016

I'm sitting here at the computer. I can look up, across the room and see two photographic prints that I've taken the steps to mat and frame and put up.

The image area in each case is somewhere between 5x7 and 8x10 - think whole plate. One is a gorgeous print that Andrew O'Neill gave me. A Kallitype if I recall correctly. It is on a really nice textured paper. It originated on 4x5 - you can see it in his APUG gallery under the title "Broken".

Accompanying it I have one of my prints that I am quite happy with. It originated on 35mm film (old T-Max 100), and is printed on Pearl surface Ilford RC paper. It is titled "291 cm" and those who participate in the APUG Postcard Exchange may have received a smaller version of it.

I bring this all up because, despite the differences in format, each of the prints is fully satisfying (to me). Neither of them lack any required resolution. In the case of my print, I've done all the necessary critical examination from closer than one should and I am happy to let this one out into the world. In the case of Andrew's print, I've just enjoyed it immensely.

Unless your requirements are more technical than aesthetic, 35mm is capable of wonderful things.

I do enjoy working with medium format and do appreciate the tonality improvements that it can offer, but they are definitely "on the margin" rather than "at the core".

chip j · Dec 12, 2016

I enjoy eyeballing my prints from a couple inches away. I printed on some Portriga crystal-silk that I have, and while the texture is a little too much the images are superb in resolution effect. Who wants to use slow film & a tripod all the time? I think a little a little texture will "sharpen up" a lot of 35mm shots (and not @ an ART 300 price!).

faberryman · Dec 12, 2016

chip j said:
Something w/a little texture to it to make up for the fact that 35mm has problems achieving high resolution.

What resolution problem are you experiencing? A textured paper will give you less apparent resolution than a non-textured paper, say fiber based glossy.

NedL · Dec 12, 2016

MattKing said:
...
One is a gorgeous print that Andrew O'Neill gave me. A Kallitype if I recall correctly. It is on a really nice textured paper. It originated on 4x5 - you can see it in his APUG gallery under the title "Broken"....

I love that image and am jealous that you have a print of it on your wall!

Sirius Glass · Dec 12, 2016

It has been a long time since I have handled silk textured paper.

chip j · Dec 12, 2016

faberryman said:
What resolution problem are you experiencing? A textured paper will give you less apparent resolution than a non-textured paper, say fiber based glossy.

That is patently false. The sharpest-appearing prints I have ever made were on LuminosTapestry from Leica M negs.

Ko.Fe. · Jun 22, 2017

I have and printed on old paper with texture. I don't think, I'm going to miss it...

Gerald C Koch · Jun 22, 2017

chip j said:
I enjoy eyeballing my prints from a couple inches away.

This is so silly that I really cannot comment except to say that there is an optimal viewing distance for every size print. Read the following article.

https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/17835/how-to-calculate-viewing-distance-for-a-print-size

darkroommike · Jun 22, 2017

My favorite "classic" non glossy paper was Ilford Velvet Stipple, their plain dull matte FB can be OK for some images but for everything else and in every brand I use a glossy dried matte finish. Other "faves" than are long discontinued are the Luminos Classic Pearl (was that a rebadged Kentmere?) and the various Kodak J surfaces. I have never like silk, crystal, etc., too gimmicky for my tastes. And Kodak Mural R.

GRHazelton · Jun 22, 2017

Back in the day I recall using a textured paper called, IIRC, "Crystal." It was FB of course and had a sort of pebbly texture and was glossy. For some subjects it was wonderful, snow scenes for example. The paper seemed to sparkle, but no glare as one can sometimes get with glossy, especially if ferrotyped. I printed on Luminos, it was cheap compared to Kodak et al. This would have been in the late 50s, early 60s.

RalphLambrecht · Jun 23, 2017

bernard_L said:
Grain achieves just that.

grain achieves apparent sharpness but not resolution.There is a difference.

Us 35mm shooters need a different paper!

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency