Why larger film

[Imaginara]

Allthough you can be printing directly from film, there are a few of us who shoot film but postprocess digitally simply because we need to do heavy retouching =)

And yes, it can be done the old fashioned way. But some of us do scan all our film to postprocess it digital simply because it's more efficient and doing it with pens & brushes is something i gladly leave to the purists while i click away in photoshop.

If no retouching is needed, then by all means, the darkroom works fine =)

 

[JC1220]

The choice to use film, and certainly to use LF, is deliberate and speaks to ones methods of work. You choose the method because it speaks to you not by accident. In part, for me, it is about producing the best possible photographs and, as of today, digital can not touch how I work in film.

 

[Alex_B]

Quite the contrary. 35mm lenses are often built with more precision than their larger counterparts. This makes sense given that they need to maximize their use of the smaller negative. Smaller image means engineering mistakes are magnified.

please re-read. I did not at all compare 35mm to any larger or smaller format.

 

[Helen B]

please re-read. I did not at all compare 35mm to any larger or smaller format.

Alex,

Since when has there been good sense and sound reasoning in these film vs digital debates? Why start expecting it now?

Today's word is specious.

Best,
Helen

 

[JC1220]

Ok, so if one where to modify an alright/good 35mm lens to fit on a LF camera it could rival some of the best LF glass, or would it blow up in ones face and work like crap?

Crap, would pretty much sum up the out come. First, you will need to find a 35mm lens that will actually cover at least 4x5 at practical focusing distances . Second, the idea that LF lenses are made to any less precision than 35mm is a bit off. There are well made lenses and there are poorly made lenses in both groups. All things being equal, if one took a negative made with a quality 150mm lens, say a g-claron and use a Zeiss 35mm lens in the 50mm range, and you cut a section of the 4x5 down to 35mm, or used the LF lens on a 35mm format, the difference in the final 35mm size prints, if any, would be slim. I'd put up any one of my vintage Dagors against any 35mm lens, there is more at work behind lens design than to say one is often more precisley engineered, other than a broad statement that a particular manufacturer may take more care in how precisley engineered their product is.

 

[Battou]

Crap, would pretty much sum up the out come. First, you will need to find a 35mm lens that will actually cover at least 4x5 at practical focusing distances . Second, the idea that LF lenses are made to any less precision than 35mm is a bit off. There are well made lenses and there are poorly made lenses in both groups. All things being equal, if one took a negative made with a quality 150mm lens, say a g-claron and use a Zeiss 35mm lens in the 50mm range, and you cut a section of the 4x5 down to 35mm, or used the LF lens on a 35mm format, the difference in the final 35mm size prints, if any, would be slim. I'd put up any one of my vintage Dagors against any 35mm lens, there is more at work behind lens design than to say one is often more precisley engineered, other than a broad statement that a particular manufacturer may take more care in how precisley engineered their product is.

Ah, like I said, I was curious. I know a handfull of things about lenses but I know squat about LF, So after reading the quoted Post I had to ask.

 

[pm63]

To be honest, for me this is a bog standard film vs. digital debate, regardless of how it was intended.

And sorry, but the opinion that anyone who hasn't shot film is not a "real" photographer is absolute crap. As David Noton often writes, 90% of the work in a photograph is done before a camera is even touched. To me, a photographer is someone who sees creative potential for an image, and records it, regardless of the media. This to me is like saying that those who manually expose are better photographers than those who auto expose, regardless of how much worse their end result may be. Where does this snobbery come from? You can't call new photographers like myself not real photographers just becase we we born in a different era.

 

[reg]

As David Noton often writes, 90% of the work in a photograph is done before a camera is even touched.

David Noton may fancy himself a poet, but he's not very statistically accurate.

 

[Hawaii Five-O]

I'm kinda excited to try medium format film. I hear it the best way to take B&W photos, the blacks are inky blacks and the whites white, and more depth than other formats.

 

[compur]

I just love the smell of fixer in the morning.

 

[christopher walrath]

I just love holding a tube in a dark room with the water running. Ooops. There goes the LOGICAL discussion.

 

[fabric]

David Noton may fancy himself a poet, but he's not very statistically accurate.

yes. 90% of the subjective intent of an imagined image.

 

[fabric]

one of my cameras is a DSLR. i put the kit lens on it. it takes 'better' pictures (sharper detail) at 5mp than at 10mp. the kit lens is old technology. it cant deliver the same resolution for 10mp.

 

[sarallyn]

I'm kinda excited to try medium format film. I hear it the best way to take B&W photos, the blacks are inky blacks and the whites white, and more depth than other formats.

it really is the best way to take b/w photos... I won't use anything else to get a b/w capture.

 

[Steph]

it really is the best way to take b/w photos... I won't use anything else to get a b/w capture.

Surely a contact print from a 8x10 (or larger) negative is even better than an enlargement from a MF neg.