What are your quality expectations?

perkeleellinen · May 24, 2013

I can only print up to 10x8 and at that size I don't have any quality issues from 35mm and no one I've showed my photos to has commented negatively (apart from my awful composition, perhaps).

We have one crappy P&S digi and 10x8 prints from Superia 1600 look better than 6x4 prints from the digi. I've heard there's better digital, but then, there's also ULF film and I've heard oil paintings are grain free.

Peltigera · May 24, 2013

perkeleellinen said:
<snip> P&S digi and 10x8 prints from Superia 1600 look better than 6x4 prints from the digi. I've heard there's better digital, but then, there's also ULF film and I've heard oil paintings are grain free.

But not brush free. Can you imaging Van Gogh with no brush marks?

darkosaric · May 24, 2013

What is crucial in 35mm work flow to get great result IMHO is that you need to be careful on very step: from choosing good lens, nice film, careful developing, checking temperature during developing, printing on great enlarger with great enlarging lens, perfect align enlarger and so on. Watching on every little step and perfecting your work will give excellent result on the end. Medium format is more forgiving (my experience from time when I was using 35mm and 6x6).

markbarendt · May 24, 2013

darkosaric said:
What is crucial in 35mm work flow to get great result IMHO is that you need to be careful on very step: from choosing good lens, nice film, careful developing, checking temperature during developing, printing on great enlarger with great enlarging lens, perfect align enlarger and so on. Watching on every little step and perfecting your work will give excellent result on the end. Medium format is more forgiving (my experience from time when I was using 35mm and 6x6).

While "technically" I agree and even strive to maintain the high process standards you suggest. Heck, I believe in and even defend the use MF or LF when people say it won't work in certain situations, but one of the true joys of small camera work lies in its spontaneity.

What I'm getting at here is that 35mm cameras can typically be grabbed, set up, pointed, and properly adjusted much more quickly than medium format cameras, that typically makes them much more forgiving when just bopping about or when unexpected opportunities arise and, if used consciously, the exposure and focus and the emotion portrayed can be "considerably better", grain and fine detail be damned get the bloody shot and sort'em out later.

Lamar · May 24, 2013

I have never printed optically but I would assume there is more to be had from 35mm if you eliminate the scan step but from my scanning experience with a Nikon Coolscan V ED I find that 35mm film detail is roughly equivalent to a 6 megapixel digital camera with better color rendition. The optics of the scanner are limiting in my case. I'm sure if I chose to get a Flextight or drum scanner I could get a bit more resolution and shadow detail but to me it would be a ridiculously huge expense for a hobby when my main method of display is a web browser. Grain is, of course, dependent upon the film. Some people are vehemently opposed to grain but I tolerate grain well and even add it to my digital photos to give them a bit of texture and "feel". Most of my scans are for web display so there is plenty of resolution in 35mm unless you really need to crop. From a print size my basic rule is to limit to 8x10 or smaller, but rules are made to be broken and I go a bit larger on occasion. I have lots of samples in my film pages if you care to look. They're scanned with the CoolScanV ED. It may give you an idea of what to expect.

http://www.lamarlamb.com/On-Film

Karl K · May 24, 2013

As with so many other photographic questions, the answer is "it all depends".
For street shooting, which I've done for more than 50 years, 35mm is the answer for the best quality/portability balance.
I shoot 400 ASA, I mean ISO, either Tri-X, Fuji or Ilford, soup it in Rodinal and scan and print.
I no longer wet print.
I accept the image for what it is....a quickly captured moment.
This is not fine art photography.
Any size print is acceptable, if viewed at the proper distance.
For superb quality, medium format is required, or even large format if you are trying print like Ansel Adams.
It's so much easier to work with the larger negatives than with 35mm, if ultimate print quality is your goal.
An image from a simple 6x6 Yashicamat will be superior to an image from the finest Leica or Nikon.
Size matters.

Hatchetman · May 24, 2013

Seems to me I've seen a lot of pictures in museums taken with Leicas. They looked pretty good too.

Paul Howell · May 24, 2013

Karl K said:
As with so many other photographic questions, the answer is "it all depends".
For street shooting, which I've done for more than 50 years, 35mm is the answer for the best quality/portability balance.
I shoot 400 ASA, I mean ISO, either Tri-X, Fuji or Ilford, soup it in Rodinal and scan and print.
I no longer wet print.
I accept the image for what it is....a quickly captured moment.
This is not fine art photography.
Any size print is acceptable, if viewed at the proper distance.
For superb quality, medium format is required, or even large format if you are trying print like Ansel Adams.
It's so much easier to work with the larger negatives than with 35mm, if ultimate print quality is your goal.
An image from a simple 6x6 Yashicamat will be superior to an image from the finest Leica or Nikon.
Size matters.

My only comment is that 35mm shot can reach the level of fine art photography, just as a shot taken with an 8X10 may be mundane. The formate does not define what is or what is not art.

Karl K · May 24, 2013

a simple truth

PDH said:
My only comment is that 35mm shot can reach the level of fine art photography, just as a shot taken with an 8X10 may be mundane. The formate does not define what is or what is not art.

My previous comment has nothing to do with the definition of what is, or what is not, art, fine or otherwise.
I am stating a fact: with all other factors being equal, the larger the negative, the higher the quality the print.

Sirius Glass · May 24, 2013

Karl K said:
My previous comment has nothing to do with the definition of what is, or what is not, art, fine or otherwise.
I am stating a fact: with all other factors being equal, the larger the negative, the higher the quality the print.

Which is why my serious [sirius?] work I use my Hasselblads and 4"x5". But the point is given that someone is committed to 35mm cameras, what is their own expectations.

markbarendt · May 24, 2013

Karl K said:
I am stating a fact: with all other factors being equal, the larger the negative, the higher the quality the print.

PDH is stating a fact too.

The problem with your argument is that in the real world the factors are rarely if ever equal (except in labs or controlled tests) and the expectations from photographer to photographer or viewer to viewer, almost never are.

Sure when a grainless print with an abundance of sharp detail is the target or correcting parallax or getting a Petzval swirl or ... is important and your subject will stand still for a bit larger formats do offer some very distinct advantages that can improve the final product and make our darkroom work easier.

A grainless print with an abundance of sharp detail is not always the defined quality standard.

Andrey · May 24, 2013

I don't expect the resolution of 35mm film to match current ffDSLRs and I don't care for it.

My reason for shooting film is to get both a toe and a shoulder in the response curve. The tonality and dynamic range of film in the highlights is what I expect.

The grainyness and how sharp the photo is secondary to emotion, composition and content. Most of the time sharpness interferes with abstraction.

I don't care to experiment with developers. If I need grain, I use D76 straight. If I need it smoother, I dilute 1:2 or 1:4. I also use HC110 because it stores nicely, but I don't like it as much.

If I need something sharp and detailed, I use medium format.

I'm probably missing out, but I can't bring myself to test different developers in a consistent manner.

mopar_guy · May 24, 2013

Choices, trade-offs and compromise

RattyMouse said:
Just curious, what are your quality expectations shooting 35mm film? Do you print? If yes, how large? Do you compare your 35mm output to a digital camera and expect a certain level of quality?

I just bought a 35mm film camera and want to make sure I do not judge it too harshly so want to hear from others and their expectations.

Thanks!

Consider the 35mm format. The choice of formats is rightly based on the relative strengths a weaknesses of the various options. The strengths of 35mm as opposed to other formats are portability, speed, ability to make many exposures in a short amount of time, etc. Highest quality is more appropriate for formats that use a greater film area. I like 35mm for is handling, the use of motor drives, the ability to easily carry a variety of lenses, its basic versatility. I seldom print larger than 8x10 and I find that the quality that 35mm produces is adequate for my needs. I would think that knowing the limitations of yourself and your equipment is part of the process of learning the craft of Photography.

Andrey · May 24, 2013

And in terms of pure resolution, I get about 4-6 megapixels at most in terms of sharpness when shooting ISO 100-400. Less when I push to 3200. Resolution gets higher if I use fomapan 25 or something similar, but I rarely do.

But sharpness is really not the point. I like the tonal response. I like the way I can print detail out of the highlights. I try to make my compositions clean and the resolution I'm getting is enough for me. Black and white film has a level of abstraction built into it. Higher resolution adds nothing for me.

Gerald C Koch · May 25, 2013

People tend to make the size of a print from 35mm into some sort of a game. They forget that print size depends on viewing distance. One must be far enough away to see the entire print without moving the eye. It's unreasonable to view a 16x20 print from a few inches away. When the proper viewing distance is observed then grain in the print is not so important.

Poisson Du Jour · May 25, 2013

The 35mm format has inherent imaging quality limitations to a point (and not generally below that) and it does pack a lot of contrast and tone into a small area. Most metering systems cope well with e.g. contrasty films, but it is the photographer that should be doing the metering for the camera to ensure the exposure is nailed.

My 35mm work virtually ceased when I migrated to the 400% larger 6x7 form; it's now confined to bushwalking and star trails and opportunities where spontaneity and speed are requisite. However, for 20 years I shot and produced quality framed prints solely from 35mm, always resisting the temptation (or prod!) to move up to a larger format: I was happy with what I was doing, despite some niggles deep down. The key to getting the very best is to work with very high quality lenses, understand hyperfocus and the appropriate depth of field for the scene and shoot every image as if your livelihood relies on its success. The largest Ilfochrome Classic prints I went to were 46 x 31.5cm. Above this, image quality suffers and there is then no contest with a comparison image shot on MF which can be twice to three times (or more) larger. I would caution against expecting too much from 35mm, but do put the camera to good use and get some quality prints done that will showcase the beauty of the smaller format.

markbarendt · May 25, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
People tend to make the size of a print from 35mm into some sort of a game. They forget that print size depends on viewing distance. One must be far enough away to see the entire print without moving the eye. It's unreasonable to view a 16x20 print from a few inches away. When the proper viewing distance is observed then grain in the print is not so important.

Exactly, many try to turn "the craftwork", the ability to work the materials and systems, into the standard of judgement for the contest.

There is nothing wrong with being good at your craft or with competing to see who can get the least grain, most detail, best bokeh, shortest DOF, or whatever. These qualities/characteristics give the participants in the contest something to measure.

It may be fun but so what?

Did this shot http://www.flickr.com/photos/41912957@N00/3669784620 get the idea across?

This one? http://www.flickr.com/photos/41912957@N00/6752152721

Do we need more detail or less grain to have these shots "work"?

If these were printed big and viewed at a reasonable distance would they still work?

Would leaning in, to within a few inches of these, improve the aesthetic experience or our understanding of what the photo was meant to portray?

HCB's and Elliot Erwitt's works would be other good examples here.

With these we'd probably still "get it" and might even enjoy them, if they were on newsprint.

darkosaric · May 25, 2013

markbarendt said:
Did this shot http://www.flickr.com/photos/41912957@N00/3669784620 get the idea across?

This one? http://www.flickr.com/photos/41912957@N00/6752152721

Those are good prints! And they show your point exactly .

rwreich · May 25, 2013

In my opinion, it's all about the way the image is rendered across the frame. 35mm has a certain character that is just different than that of any other format. Because of the way the larger film area has a way of reinterpreting which focal length is normal, they aren't really comparable.

To be frank, I expect excellent quality from whichever format I'm choosing.

perkeleellinen · May 26, 2013

I was thinking about this thread on my way home. I remember seeing that Galen Rowell photo of the rainbow over a Tibetan Palace and the print was quite big. Likewise, the Don McCullin photo of the soldier throwing a grenade, some Steve McCurry portraits, and some huge Salgado prints shown outdoors in Lisbon. I think all of them came from 35mm film and were printed as wide as my shoulders. Timing, light and composition seemed to be what made them special, I didn't put my nose next to the prints to check for grain.

RattyMouse · May 27, 2013

perkeleellinen said:
I was thinking about this thread on my way home. I remember seeing that Galen Rowell photo of the rainbow over a Tibetan Palace and the print was quite big. Likewise, the Don McCullin photo of the soldier throwing a grenade, some Steve McCurry portraits, and some huge Salgado prints shown outdoors in Lisbon. I think all of them came from 35mm film and were printed as wide as my shoulders. Timing, light and composition seemed to be what made them special, I didn't put my nose next to the prints to check for grain.

I agree. By sheer coincidence I bought a Nikon FM2, which is the camera Steve McCurry used to photograph Afghan Girl. Now if he can be happy with that, I must be a fool to think what I have is not good enough.

That's my current thought on this topic. We'll see how the results come along. 3 new rolls of film heading into the lab today.

Poisson Du Jour · May 27, 2013

RattyMouse said:
I agree. By sheer coincidence I bought a Nikon FM2, which is the camera Steve McCurry used to photograph Afghan Girl. Now if he can be happy with that, I must be a fool to think what I have is not good enough.

That's my current thought on this topic. We'll see how the results come along. 3 new rolls of film heading into the lab today.

Mr RattyMouse, I'm sure there's plenty of wild eyed youngsters in China worthy of an Afghan Girl moment to flex your FM2 on, but nothing beats having a vision for the unusual and just being there, in the right place at the precisely right moment.

Nothing captures the imagination more than McCurry's shot of the girl with those searing clear eyes. I Googled it before ("Afghan Girl" and follow to NG's "A Life Revealed") and up she comes, hauntingly beautiful as the day he got the pic. There's quite an interesting background on Sharba Gullut (?spellling, the girl's name), an adult now of course with nowhere near the same emotionally-charged face as that 30 years ago. I've never quite seen anything that goes near that pic, not even in this digitally-pervasive, supercharged world. Pity about the pathetic, amateurish and plain silly parodies that splinter the serenity of the initial pic. A great pity.

newcan1 · May 27, 2013

I am drawn to producing very high resolution, fairly grainless color images at the moment. I have been shooting Vision3 250D movie stock and adding 10ml/L H202 to the RA4 print developer, to adjust contrast. At 8x10 print size, I am blown away by the results. No discernible grain - phenomenal dynamic range - and spot on contrast. My results are better than my results with Portra 160NC (I haven't used the latest Portra 160). My "go to" lenses are mainly Nikon manual focus, my favorite right now being the 35-135 f3.5 zoom while I get some of my fixed focal length lenses "Ai'd".

A previous commenter compared results to a 5 or 6 megapixel image. I'm not sure what that means. Kodak's spec sheet for Vison3 250D indicates resolution of 100 sine waves/mm which is likely in excess of all but the very best 35mm format lenses.

I have done some 11x14's shot on Portra - also quite grainless, but I don't think they'd hold up against medium format - because you do begin to notice the drop off in resolution due to the limited negative area.

I agree comparisons with digital are futile - the two media are quite different. Also cropped sensor images are only half the area of 35mm (or more precisely, 2/3x2/3). And each film grain can discern any color (no Bayer screen). I do think I get infinitely better results wet printing than scanning, but that may be due in part to the fact that my scanner is not the best (Nikon LS 2000)

Kiev88user · May 27, 2013

Hi there, I use a 1937 Contax II and associated (Russian) lenses. I expect good, sharp results with subjects that fill the frame (using FP4 or Delta 100 b&W film), but detail is likely to be lacking in such as landscapes or similar views.
I have a 23cm monitor and scan negatives, I can get a good sharp picture from from 35mm. I regularly got good quality 8 x 10 images when I used to print from an enlarger. The main thing is to enjoy using the camera for the subjects it is best for, I like 35mm for close to subject shots where I need a good depth of field (can't get that with the Pentacon Six), and medium format for detail shots which need the resolution of 120 format film.
I try not to compare to my digital SLR as it is like comparing chalk with cheese really.

Cheers,

Steve

rolleiman · May 27, 2013

You should be able to get good quality 16x12's with good technique. However, perhaps you should be thinking of "atmosphere and feeling" when photographing, rather than being over concerned about technical matters. I stopped buying photo magazines as they seem more concerned with megapixels than pictures. Don't fall into this "mine's sharper than yours" trap.

What are your quality expectations?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency