Re: Scanning BW (was Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5)
- Original Message - From: Caveman Subject: Scanning BW (was Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5) Bill, Try this: scan them as color slide, then invert them and transform to grayscale in Photoshop. With some scanners this produces better results. Thanks Valentin, I'll give that a try. William Robb
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
- Original Message - From: Cotty Subject: Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 Also, I am talking about real photos, not digital inkjet things which may or may not be as good as a print from the negative. Hey, great idea: let's find out! I know, get someone to shoot a scene with neg a dozen times, send the negs of to various people, and get them to print it to the best of their ability, some wet, some inkjet things, and hey presto - a great foto printing contest! I am so bad. But, I did find my darkroom the other day. William Robb
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
I don't know about that. My Graphic weighs about the same as a Nikon F5. Film holders are bulky and heavy I admit. But the real problem in this day and age is finding ashtrays to pop the used flashbulbs into grin. Flashbulbs? I thought you had a tray of magnesium powder? Cheers Peter
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
Oh, good lord, no. I am only 50 years out of date. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 7:53 AM Subject: Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 I don't know about that. My Graphic weighs about the same as a Nikon F5. Film holders are bulky and heavy I admit. But the real problem in this day and age is finding ashtrays to pop the used flashbulbs into grin. Flashbulbs? I thought you had a tray of magnesium powder? Cheers Peter
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Nick Zentena wrote: Building smaller cameras like 4x5 doesn't make sense to save money. I think it has less to do with money and more to do with the fact that you can design and build your own camera with your own hands. How many people do you know who can say they've built their own camera? If I had the skills to do something like that, cost be damned, I would. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
RE: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
I'm going to chime in again with some thoughts. Lens coverage information http://www.graflex.org/lenses/lens-spec.html Resolution information http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html The particular lens can make a perception difference here. A very good medium format lens, say on Pentax 67, will hit around 90 lp/mm A mediocre medium format lens, like a Yashica D, will hit around 40 lp/mm A good LF lens, Super Symmar XL, is up at that 80+ lp/mm range. A decent LF lens, Fujinon-W 135/5.6 (70s vintage), is around 70 lp/mm. A mediocre LF lens, like a Wollensak, will be about 35 lp/mm, and really bad corners! There's so much information on those large (6x7 4x5) negs that the minimal enlargement to 11x14 makes little difference when quality lenses are involved on both parts. A mediocre lens on either unit will make a clear difference. 4x5 to 11x14 is only a (roughly) 3x enlargement. 6cm x 7cm to 11x14 is a (roughly) 5x enlargement. So there's not much to compare because the difference isn't being pushed. The film will hold everything the lenses will resolve. It's not surprising that the difference isn't immediately visible with quality lenses on both formats. The detail is all there. The tonality difference will show up @ 16x20, with a good 4x5 lens really shining. But @ 11x14 up, I suspect you'll find that corners are more a problem. It's like the difference of an average zoom and that Vivi 90-180 flat field zoom. The image just feels better. A good wide-coverage 4x5 lens gives that. (Which is why I picked the Fujinon-W 135/5.6. Wide circle, excellent resolution, modern multi-coating, and relatively cheap @ about $250 shipped. And why I print with longer lenses in the darkroom--keep those corners from pulling any little bit.) In many ways, 6x7 is far more practical when prints stay below 16x20. You lose the facility of Zone control on a shot-by-shot basis, but with a good neg you still get an excellent print. http://www.cicada.com/pub/photo/zs/ The Zone System is nice, but it's a practice all its own. I don't use it because I don't have the time, patience, or funds to keep testing density curves. Rather, for me a good neg == a good print. And (even cheap) 4x5 allows some practical lens movement. Collin - At 07:17 AM 3/28/03 -0500, you wrote: OK, your saying you cant hardly tell the difference between 67 and 4X5 on an 11X14 print. Maybe your 4X5 lenses aren't up to snuff? 4X5 is 3 time larger than 67 and the difference in sharpness should be clearly visible. As far as optical printing goes, there are many of the opinion that scanning and digitally printing can exceed what is possible conventionally due to limitations in enlarging lenses, even really good ones. Scanning is more consistent from center to edge than optical printing techniques. - * Never give up, never surrender! --- Yes, you should watch Galaxy Quest.
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
From gfen : If I had the skills to do something like that, cost be damned, I would. After having had a look at Grepstad's book, and some other resources around, I'd say it's probably not that difficult to do. There are only two things that need to be absolutes. One is no light leaks, of course. The other is to make sure that the gound glass focuses on the same plane as where the film plane will be. It would take some _time_ to build it, though... Jostein
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Jostein wrote: After having had a look at Grepstad's book, and some other resources around, I'd say it's probably not that difficult to do. There are only You've, obviously, never seen me with a tool. :) -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
On March 28, 2003 09:03 am, collinb wrote: I'm going to chime in again with some thoughts. Lens coverage information http://www.graflex.org/lenses/lens-spec.html Resolution information http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html The particular lens can make a perception difference here. A very good medium format lens, say on Pentax 67, will hit around 90 lp/mm A mediocre medium format lens, like a Yashica D, will hit around 40 lp/mm A good LF lens, Super Symmar XL, is up at that 80+ lp/mm range. A decent LF lens, Fujinon-W 135/5.6 (70s vintage), is around 70 lp/mm. A mediocre LF lens, like a Wollensak, will be about 35 lp/mm, and really bad corners! Which F stops are you interested in? If the resolution tests of LF lens showed anything it was that at working F stops [F/16 and smaller] the difference between lens are fairly small. Often so small that sample variation might explain it. A good example of this is the Fuji CM-W f/5.6 125mm dated some time in the 1990s versus Carl Ziess Jena f/9 12.5cm with a serial number that dates it at 1931. If you're actually stopped down to F/32 that likely gets even closer. Obviously if you have a need for a fast lens with large coverage then the modern designs can be better. But if at the smaller stops things get pretty damn close. Nick
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
On March 28, 2003 08:53 am, gfen wrote: On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Nick Zentena wrote: Building smaller cameras like 4x5 doesn't make sense to save money. I think it has less to do with money and more to do with the fact that you can design and build your own camera with your own hands. How many people do you know who can say they've built their own camera? If I had the skills to do something like that, cost be damned, I would. Drop in on the Camera makers mailing list. You'll find quite a few. I still don't think buidling a 4x5 makes a great deal of sense. The cost and effort shouldn't be much less then 8x10. If some one is building for the enjoyment of building that's one thing but to use? 4x5 of every kind are fairly common. Nick
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 I scan on my Epson 2450 and print on my epson 1280. BW prints dont look as good as darkroom but the color are wonderful. I am using a 2450 as well, and the quality of scans from black and white is really hit or miss. What is a for sure is that the 2450 does not do a very good job of scanning black and white negatives. Actually, I have yet to hear of a scanner that does good scans from black and white film. William Robb
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 OK, your saying you cant hardly tell the difference between 67 and 4X5 on an 11X14 print. Maybe your 4X5 lenses arent up to snuff? 4X5 is 3 time larger than 67 and the difference in sharpness should be clearly visable. JC, you are missing (deliberately, I suspect) the point. Collin gets it. He said it himself, the difference of magnification at 11 x 14 is very slight, and well within the quality limits of both film sizes. I recall reading an article in DCCT a while back regarding this very thing. The gist from several respected photographic artists and technicians was in agreement with what I have found in my own work. Perhaps you need to actually make photographic prints to see it. For myself, I don't really care what you think you know. William Robb
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
Collin seems to have figured it out. Bravo Collin!!! William Robb - Original Message - From: collinb Subject: RE: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 I'm going to chime in again with some thoughts. Lens coverage information http://www.graflex.org/lenses/lens-spec.html Resolution information http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html The particular lens can make a perception difference here. A very good medium format lens, say on Pentax 67, will hit around 90 lp/mm A mediocre medium format lens, like a Yashica D, will hit around 40 lp/mm A good LF lens, Super Symmar XL, is up at that 80+ lp/mm range. A decent LF lens, Fujinon-W 135/5.6 (70s vintage), is around 70 lp/mm. A mediocre LF lens, like a Wollensak, will be about 35 lp/mm, and really bad corners! There's so much information on those large (6x7 4x5) negs that the minimal enlargement to 11x14 makes little difference when quality lenses are involved on both parts. A mediocre lens on either unit will make a clear difference. 4x5 to 11x14 is only a (roughly) 3x enlargement. 6cm x 7cm to 11x14 is a (roughly) 5x enlargement. So there's not much to compare because the difference isn't being pushed. The film will hold everything the lenses will resolve. It's not surprising that the difference isn't immediately visible with quality lenses on both formats. The detail is all there. The tonality difference will show up @ 16x20, with a good 4x5 lens really shining. But @ 11x14 up, I suspect you'll find that corners are more a problem. It's like the difference of an average zoom and that Vivi 90-180 flat field zoom. The image just feels better. A good wide-coverage 4x5 lens gives that. (Which is why I picked the Fujinon-W 135/5.6. Wide circle, excellent resolution, modern multi-coating, and relatively cheap @ about $250 shipped. And why I print with longer lenses in the darkroom--keep those corners from pulling any little bit.) In many ways, 6x7 is far more practical when prints stay below 16x20. You lose the facility of Zone control on a shot-by-shot basis, but with a good neg you still get an excellent print. http://www.cicada.com/pub/photo/zs/ The Zone System is nice, but it's a practice all its own. I don't use it because I don't have the time, patience, or funds to keep testing density curves. Rather, for me a good neg == a good print. And (even cheap) 4x5 allows some practical lens movement.
RE: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
Still disagree, 4X5 is approx 1.7 times larger linear and and 2.95 times the area of 67. Thats 2.95 times the infomation assuming equal quality optics are used. When you look at a print you see the area, which is two dimensions so using linear Mag factors of 3X and 5X is wrong. I am seeing way more detail in my 4X5 negs, than in my 67 negs. Seeing is believeing. JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 7:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 OK, your saying you cant hardly tell the difference between 67 and 4X5 on an 11X14 print. Maybe your 4X5 lenses arent up to snuff? 4X5 is 3 time larger than 67 and the difference in sharpness should be clearly visable. JC, you are missing (deliberately, I suspect) the point. Collin gets it. He said it himself, the difference of magnification at 11 x 14 is very slight, and well within the quality limits of both film sizes. I recall reading an article in DCCT a while back regarding this very thing. The gist from several respected photographic artists and technicians was in agreement with what I have found in my own work. Perhaps you need to actually make photographic prints to see it. For myself, I don't really care what you think you know. William Robb
Scanning BW (was Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5)
Bill, Try this: scan them as color slide, then invert them and transform to grayscale in Photoshop. With some scanners this produces better results. cheers, caveman William Robb wrote: I am using a 2450 as well, and the quality of scans from black and white is really hit or miss. What is a for sure is that the 2450 does not do a very good job of scanning black and white negatives. Actually, I have yet to hear of a scanner that does good scans from black and white film.
Re: Scanning BW (was Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5)
Caveman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Try this: scan them as color slide, then invert them and transform to grayscale in Photoshop. With some scanners this produces better results. This technique is what I use for scanning BW. As the Caveman says, it seems to work better. Also note that chromogenic (C-41 process) BW films scan better than traditional types. Scanners seem to like dye clouds better than grains. Still, nothing beats traditional darkroom process for BW. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
Even up to 16x20 it's not easy to see the diff, if one can at all, with Acros. 6x7 is almost LF and is pretty inexpensive for what one gets. I must say, too, that JCO spent a lot to start with 4x5. One can get a nice outfit for less than $1000US. Collin At 04:21 AM 3/27/03 -0500, you wrote: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:44:20 -0600 From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mostly, I agree. In print sizes up to 11x14 there is no significant quality difference between 6x7 and 4x5. William Robb
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
On March 26, 2003 10:44 pm, William Robb wrote: Mostly, I agree. In print sizes up to 11x14 there is no significant quality difference between 6x7 and 4x5. Well a 4x5 contact print can almost be big enough. A 5x7 is easily big enough for some uses. I like 6x9 contact prints but 6x7 would be too small. Nick
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
On March 26, 2003 09:46 pm, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Anyway, I suggest any of you yearning for better quality images give 4X5 a shot. The lenses and bodies ( monorails) arent very expensive used and give an incredible bang for the buck. I spent about $2500 for two cameras, ( a press and a monorail view) and 6 lenses used (great shape) on ebay. Really good lenses too.( Schneider Fujinon). As a comparison, I spent over $4000 on my P67 with 8 lenses and of course the quality is lower with P67 than with 4X5. Well one obvious advantage of LF is that cheap old lens are often quite good. Take a look at the http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html Add in the effect of small F stops and the field is even more even then the tests show. Depending on what you use the camera for then shutters aren't even needed. I forget who said it but I'll quote it anyways The pyramids haven't moved in thousands of years. Why do I need a faster shutter? I've picked up a total of six lens. Ranging from 105mm to 19 [480mm] Total price less then $300 including shipping etc. Only one has a shutter but when your exposure times are in the multi second range a shutter is just added weight. My lenses range from Agfa to Zeiss. The process lenses cost quite a bit new. Now? The 19 I got Saturday was $20. If the rumours are true the lens I got is a Goerz Dagor. Worse case it's still worth the $20 I paid. The budget Nikons are a bit of a pain. They are so big they can be hard to fit. Just something to think about if the front of your camera is small. Nick
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
J.C., you forgot the best part. Focusing an upside down image on ground glass is just cool. Evan (now collecting pieces to build an 8x10)
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, collinb wrote: I must say, too, that JCO spent a lot to start with 4x5. One can get a nice outfit for less than $1000US. This is where I'll pop in and say I got a Speed Graphic with a 135/4.7 press lens and a 111/8 WA Dagor, four film holders, for $60 (or was it $75?). Deals happen, especially if you look. I've since added only some more holders, an additional lens, and a cheap meter and I'm still well under $500 total. Unfortuantly, it sold me on quality..and its not the most portable, which is how I ended up spending much more on a used 645 kit, because big negatives will absolutely spoil you. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
Try carying 4x5 (or 6x7) setup around with you, on your shoulder, for a few hours, for a few days, and I am pretty sure print quality and flexibility of ME-S with a single 50mm lens will start looking very appealing. OTOH, Rolleicord is a completely different story... :) Mishka, who just came back from a vacation in Barcelona.
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
I don't know about that. My Graphic weighs about the same as a Nikon F5. Film holders are bulky and heavy I admit. But the real problem in this day and age is finding ashtrays to pop the used flashbulbs into grin. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 9:53 AM Subject: Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 Try carying 4x5 (or 6x7) setup around with you, on your shoulder, for a few hours, for a few days, and I am pretty sure print quality and flexibility of ME-S with a single 50mm lens will start looking very appealing. OTOH, Rolleicord is a completely different story... :) Mishka, who just came back from a vacation in Barcelona.
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, T Rittenhouse wrote: I don't know about that. My Graphic weighs about the same as a Nikon F5. Film holders are bulky and heavy I admit. But the real problem in this day and age is finding ashtrays to pop the used flashbulbs into grin. An F5 weighs as much as a Speed or a Crown? -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
An F5 is as large and hefty as a 67 with grip, a speed graphic isn't much heavier --- gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, T Rittenhouse wrote: I don't know about that. My Graphic weighs about the same as a Nikon F5. Film holders are bulky and heavy I admit. But the real problem in this day and age is finding ashtrays to pop the used flashbulbs into grin. An F5 weighs as much as a Speed or a Crown? -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio. __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
RE: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
67 cost me MORE than 4X5. 4X5 is three times larger than 67. I dont feel $2500 is alot, I got SIX high quality lenses. Hardly a starter outfit. JCO -Original Message- From: collinb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 7:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 Even up to 16x20 it's not easy to see the diff, if one can at all, with Acros. 6x7 is almost LF and is pretty inexpensive for what one gets. I must say, too, that JCO spent a lot to start with 4x5. One can get a nice outfit for less than $1000US. Collin At 04:21 AM 3/27/03 -0500, you wrote: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:44:20 -0600 From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mostly, I agree. In print sizes up to 11x14 there is no significant quality difference between 6x7 and 4x5. William Robb
RE: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
I started out with a speed graphic, 135mm lens, 10 holders and case for $150, BUT I soon wanted much more camera movements and better optics and many more lenses. I currently have 75mm,90mm, 135mm, 210mm, and 360mm. These are all recent vintage and in modern shutters except for the 360mm which is a Tele-Xenar in a Compound shutter. I think I'm done but I still might go for a 65mm Super- angulon too. Wide angle photography using 4X5 is awesome. JCO -Original Message- From: gfen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, collinb wrote: I must say, too, that JCO spent a lot to start with 4x5. One can get a nice outfit for less than $1000US. This is where I'll pop in and say I got a Speed Graphic with a 135/4.7 press lens and a 111/8 WA Dagor, four film holders, for $60 (or was it $75?). Deals happen, especially if you look. I've since added only some more holders, an additional lens, and a cheap meter and I'm still well under $500 total. Unfortuantly, it sold me on quality..and its not the most portable, which is how I ended up spending much more on a used 645 kit, because big negatives will absolutely spoil you. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
RE: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
I said 4X5 wasnt for everthing didnt I??? Print quality of 35mm suffers once you go bigger than 4X6 compared to larger formats. JCO -Original Message- From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 9:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 Try carying 4x5 (or 6x7) setup around with you, on your shoulder, for a few hours, for a few days, and I am pretty sure print quality and flexibility of ME-S with a single 50mm lens will start looking very appealing. OTOH, Rolleicord is a completely different story... :) Mishka, who just came back from a vacation in Barcelona.
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
jco, the subject states 35mm SUCKS!. i disagree. 4x5 is a *special purpose* tool, and as such it is wonderful. it's like saying that 50mm lens sucks since 1000mm allows for better quality of far away detail, or that honda civic sucks since any formula-1 car is faster. btw, 4x5 definitely sucks since 10x12 blows it away quality-wise, doesn't it? this very much pointless, anyway -- for *what you are doing* 4x5 is better, you are excited about it and i am happy that you share your excitement. best, mishka - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 12:16 PM Subject: RE: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 I said 4X5 wasnt for everthing didnt I??? Print quality of 35mm suffers once you go bigger than 4X6 compared to larger formats. JCO -Original Message- From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 9:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 Try carying 4x5 (or 6x7) setup around with you, on your shoulder, for a few hours, for a few days, and I am pretty sure print quality and flexibility of ME-S with a single 50mm lens will start looking very appealing. OTOH, Rolleicord is a completely different story... :) Mishka, who just came back from a vacation in Barcelona.
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
I agree wth your disagree... ;) All cameras serve a purpose and if they do that , they have done well. Even point and shoots have their place where it's not pratical to take a SLR. jco, the subject states 35mm SUCKS!. i disagree. 4x5 is a *special purpose* tool, and as such it is wonderful. it's like saying that 50mm lens sucks since 1000mm allows for better quality of far away detail, or that honda civic sucks since any formula-1 car is faster. btw, 4x5 definitely sucks since 10x12 blows it away quality-wise, doesn't it?
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
On March 27, 2003 12:54 pm, Mishka wrote: jco, the subject states 35mm SUCKS!. i disagree. 4x5 is a *special purpose* tool, and as such it is wonderful. it's like saying that 50mm lens sucks since 1000mm allows for better quality of far away detail, or that honda civic sucks since any formula-1 car is faster. btw, 4x5 definitely sucks since 10x12 blows it away quality-wise, doesn't it? this very much pointless, anyway -- for *what you are doing* 4x5 is better, you are excited about it and i am happy that you share your excitement. Nah 35mm is the special purpose tool. Other then the few things that need the speed of 35mm bigger is better-))) Nick
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
I've got some very good 8 X 10's from print film shot on 35mm. Even have an 11 X 14. I don't have the patience to work with sheet film. Got an old camera at a swap meet that uses 5 X 7 film. The seller loaded some film into a couple of film holders and I went out and tried it. Many steps involve with shooting sheet film. I have to hand to folks that do this type of photography. My medium format photography is done with a 645 Pentax. The 6 X 7 is too big for my small hands, and I don't like the weight. Jim A. From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:16:51 -0500 To: Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:16:55 -0500 I said 4X5 wasnt for everthing didnt I??? Print quality of 35mm suffers once you go bigger than 4X6 compared to larger formats. JCO -Original Message- From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 9:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 Try carying 4x5 (or 6x7) setup around with you, on your shoulder, for a few hours, for a few days, and I am pretty sure print quality and flexibility of ME-S with a single 50mm lens will start looking very appealing. OTOH, Rolleicord is a completely different story... :) Mishka, who just came back from a vacation in Barcelona.
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
On March 27, 2003 03:21 pm, Jostein wrote: Guys, If you really mean it about large format, build the camera yourself! It's a lot cheaper than buying, and will give you _hours_ of fun at the computer keyboard with your fingers glued together...:-) For what he charges for the book you're almost 1/2 way to an older monorail. The cost of just a new set of bellows might exceed the cost of an used camera Building smaller cameras like 4x5 doesn't make sense to save money. Nick
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
- Original Message - From: Nick Zentena Subject: Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 Mostly, I agree. In print sizes up to 11x14 there is no significant quality difference between 6x7 and 4x5. Well a 4x5 contact print can almost be big enough. A 5x7 is easily big enough for some uses. I like 6x9 contact prints but 6x7 would be too small. And the quality difference is where? You are talking about something completely different from technical quality. William Robb
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 I can see a difference in my 8.5X11s between 35mm, 67 4X5. The main differences are in sharpness, microcontrast, and grain. You dont need to go to huge prints to see the differences although it does make the differences more apparent when you go 11X14, 13 X19, or larger. You may want to have a read of what Mr. Johnson has to say on the subject. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/LF-Con.htm I suspect that what you are seeing has more to do with scanning rather than anything inherent in the format sizes. I have 11x14 prints from both 6x7 and 4x5 on my walls. Both show similar granularity (none) and tonality. I make first generation real photographs though, on real photographic paper. This is not the same thing as producing a second generation electronic facsimile of a negative, and then making a third generation print from it. William Robb
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto/why.html And I agree, if you can not tell the difference in a side by side comparison of 8x10 you need to see a good ophthalmologist. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 3:59 PM Subject: RE: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 I can see a difference in my 8.5X11s between 35mm, 67 4X5. The main differences are in sharpness, microcontrast, and grain. You dont need to go to huge prints to see the differences although it does make the differences more apparent when you go 11X14, 13 X19, or larger. Another big advantage of 4X5 is you can crop more if desired and still end up with excellent results. Not really true with 35mm... JCO -Original Message- From: Jim Apilado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 2:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 I've got some very good 8 X 10's from print film shot on 35mm. Even have an 11 X 14. I don't have the patience to work with sheet film. Got an old camera at a swap meet that uses 5 X 7 film. The seller loaded some film into a couple of film holders and I went out and tried it. Many steps involve with shooting sheet film. I have to hand to folks that do this type of photography. My medium format photography is done with a 645 Pentax. The 6 X 7 is too big for my small hands, and I don't like the weight. Jim A. From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:16:51 -0500 To: Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:16:55 -0500 I said 4X5 wasnt for everthing didnt I??? Print quality of 35mm suffers once you go bigger than 4X6 compared to larger formats. JCO -Original Message- From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 9:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 Try carying 4x5 (or 6x7) setup around with you, on your shoulder, for a few hours, for a few days, and I am pretty sure print quality and flexibility of ME-S with a single 50mm lens will start looking very appealing. OTOH, Rolleicord is a completely different story... :) Mishka, who just came back from a vacation in Barcelona.
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
Interesting, Bill. A 4x5 is about as much bigger than an 6x7 as a 6x7 is bigger than 35mm, yet you say you can tell the difference between a 35 and a 6x7 but not between a 6x7 and a 4x5. Personally I find that there is not much difference between a compedent 6x7 and a mediocre 4x5, the the fact you can go slap happy with a 4x5 negative and still get a satisfactory result, to me, points up the difference. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 7:36 PM Subject: Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 I can see a difference in my 8.5X11s between 35mm, 67 4X5. The main differences are in sharpness, microcontrast, and grain. You dont need to go to huge prints to see the differences although it does make the differences more apparent when you go 11X14, 13 X19, or larger. You may want to have a read of what Mr. Johnson has to say on the subject. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/LF-Con.htm I suspect that what you are seeing has more to do with scanning rather than anything inherent in the format sizes. I have 11x14 prints from both 6x7 and 4x5 on my walls. Both show similar granularity (none) and tonality. I make first generation real photographs though, on real photographic paper. This is not the same thing as producing a second generation electronic facsimile of a negative, and then making a third generation print from it. William Robb
RE: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
Are you trying to say there isnt any difference between 35mm and 67 prints, either analog or digitally printed? JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 7:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 I can see a difference in my 8.5X11s between 35mm, 67 4X5. The main differences are in sharpness, microcontrast, and grain. You dont need to go to huge prints to see the differences although it does make the differences more apparent when you go 11X14, 13 X19, or larger. You may want to have a read of what Mr. Johnson has to say on the subject. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/LF-Con.htm I suspect that what you are seeing has more to do with scanning rather than anything inherent in the format sizes. I have 11x14 prints from both 6x7 and 4x5 on my walls. Both show similar granularity (none) and tonality. I make first generation real photographs though, on real photographic paper. This is not the same thing as producing a second generation electronic facsimile of a negative, and then making a third generation print from it. William Robb
35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
I've been shooting 4X5 (mostly BW) heavily for the last few months or so and have been very satisfied with the results. Today I went back and printed a few of my very best quality 35mm film scans and they look like crap after getting so used to 4X5. No surprise I guess. Anyway, I suggest any of you yearning for better quality images give 4X5 a shot. The lenses and bodies ( monorails) arent very expensive used and give an incredible bang for the buck. I spent about $2500 for two cameras, ( a press and a monorail view) and 6 lenses used (great shape) on ebay. Really good lenses too.( Schneider Fujinon). As a comparison, I spent over $4000 on my P67 with 8 lenses and of course the quality is lower with P67 than with 4X5. Another nice thing about 4X5 is that it isnt going to be obsoleted by digital soon. My 4X5 scans are ~90 Mpixels @2400 dpi. Large prints (13X19 on my Epson) really give a You are There result. No darkroom / bulky enlarger is needed with todays scanners either.. Sure, there are certain types of photography you cant do with a 4X5, but for the ones you can like portraits, landscape, and architecture, the quality trumps small and medium formats by a wide margin. Lastly, it's alot of FUN! Try it , you'll like it. P.S. no TTL meters, no AF, no winders, no zooms, no AE, No batteries, But thankfully, you dont need them. There is one downside, NO SMC Pentax large format lenses! JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com My Business references Websites: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/jco/
