pensacolaphoto Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 While this is old news, I just had to say it again. I just got back three proof sheets of beach portraits taken with three MF cameras (Fuji GL690, Rolleiflex 2.8D, Tele Rolleiflex). The clarity is stunning. Why in the world am I using 35mm cameras?! I guess, choice of lenses and mobility. Do you get such feelings when you use both 35mm and MF cameras? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troyammons Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Yes yes yes but my feeling is even more so for 4x5 film. if you think MF is superb go borrow a 4x5 sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugh_sakols Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 I really can't see much of a difference between small prints (up to 8x12) shot with fuji velvia 50 - but really enjoy projecting my 6x6 images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonpg Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 I'm with you Raid, and it's never old news. Every time I look into my Hassy or Rollieflex viewfinders, I'm filled with joy. As you say: the clarity is stunning - the sharpness, the 3 dimensional impact.................... So, I recently bought my second Hassy body and another lens to fill a big gap - put them together and WOW. So I ran out the door and found something to shoot. My only reason for using 135 format still is "different horses for different courses". My Leica M kit is also a wonderful experience but for very different purposes - mobility and different subject purposes. My EOS kit is limited to longer shooting and action stuff. By the way I aslo shoot LF. In a similar way when I set up arrange my rear and front standards, WOW! That 4x5 image under a dark cloth is a thing of beauty - a great reward for all that effort! Enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ned1 Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 I picked up a 52 year-old Rolleicord at a flea market. My God! I'll probably never pick up my Nikon again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambrick007 Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 "Do you get such feelings when you use both 35mm and MF cameras?" <p>Yeah, only until I have to find EASILY available 120 film and processing :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambrick007 Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 by easy, I mean 1hr processing, and and at stores that are open after 5:30 PM and on Sundays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted May 19, 2005 Author Share Posted May 19, 2005 Does anyone here have current information on Xray problems and related issues for MF film and traveling by planes overseas? I recall reading somewhere a thread about such problems. Since inspection has been raised to another level, I wonder whether 120 film can get through Xray undamaged when scanned repeatedly. Maybe someone here can help me out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_fromm1 Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Raid, 35 mm has its place. Photomacrography is much easier with it than with 2x3. And until I run out of KM, I won't really do that much better closeup on 2x3 with, say, EPP. But yes, other things equal, a 24x36 transparency looks pretty punk next to a 6x4.5 transparency. This from a friend who moved up from 35 mm to 645. A 6x4.5 transparency looks pretty punk next to a 2x3 one. This from the same friend, on seeing some of my work. 2x3 looks pretty punk next to 4x5. And so it goes. Bigger is better, but always has drawbacks. Come to think of it, 35 mm has a slight cost advantage too. I'm not sure the added care in composition and exposure that larger formats tend to enforce always makes up for it. Cheers, Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jan_de_ridder1 Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 I use Hassleblad, obviously 6x6cm and the results are as you said highly superior to 35mm but as mentioned before 35mm has its place, faster, lighter, easier to setup and use and at a 20x30cm (max)print the difference is not all big. Shoot Efke 25 with a 35mm and you won't see the difference .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jan_de_ridder1 Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 MF is another ballgame alltogether, need to setup your tripod, measure the light, spotmeter the light etc. this sequence of events will even lead to great quality using 35mm cameras. I differentiate though I use my Hassleblad for "scenery" while my Fm3a is used in a combination of people shots and scenery, this also due to the liberally priced tilt and shifts, and the leica I use purely as a point and shoot "people camera" Although for pure "street" as modern day vocabulary calls it I find using the Hassleblad less inconspicuous than the leica, holding it at waist level with hyperfocal focussing .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msitaraman Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 "MF Blows Away 35mm" But of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tito sobrinho Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 ...and my 8x10 camera blows away any MF system! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_moeller Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Sheldon- Please don't take this answer as a "smart-ass" comment; it's really not meant that way. If you want turn-around on your time schedule, the best thing to do is to develop the film yourself. It's not hard. B&W is easiest, because the chemicals are used at near-room temperatures and you can be a bit sloppy with your process and still get excellent results. But C-41 and E-6 can easily be done at home, and all it takes is a way to keep your chemicals at the right temperature (think of a cooler full of warm water holding your chemical bottles), more accurate timing of your procedures (which just takes being a bit more careful), and chemicals that you can pick up at a lot of brick-and-mortar shops and plenty of on-line shops. The equipment you'll need is dirt cheap, and the satisfaction of pulling out your negatives or transparencies when you know you've controlled the whole process from start to finish is a great feeling. There seems to be a general feeling that B&W is so easy that a lot of people do it themselves, but color should be taken to a pro lab. I can tell you from personal experience that it just isn't so. Be well. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted May 19, 2005 Author Share Posted May 19, 2005 How about that 20x30 polaroid camera, Tito! It blows away your 4x5 camera :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_nancarrow Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Dave, I've been thinking of developing my own E-6 for a while now, I always do my own B&W with good results. Can you be more specific on where to pick up/how to mix chemicals and either some detailed instructions or where to find them on-line? I've searched for "kits" on the net and haven't been very succesful and eventually lost interest due to what seemed like the sets being hard to get. Any advice would be appreciated, thanks, Bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calvin_lee Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Raid, I'm with you on that one. My F5 barely gets used these days, while my Mamiya RB67 Pro SD & 645 Pro see most of the action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ned1 Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Shoot BW and develop the negative yourself. With a little practice you can get that down to about 30 minutes plus drying time (which you can speed up with a fan or hair dryer). Scan instead of enlarging and you've got a total turn-around of about 90 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andre_reinders Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 I must agree - I am a novice in any format - but I got a Mamiyaflex TLR about 3 moths ago (early model) WOW! I love using it. I think the attraction is partly the negative size - but the other part (as it has been said before) is that it forces you to slow down and really think about what you are doing. Long live film! Long live manual cameras! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_ Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 There used to be 35mm Kodak film in the ASA 32 variety (and Ilford had some ASA 50 stuff) that in B&W sort of made a print equal to that of a 2-1/4 neg. 6x6 cropped and a vertical 35mm neg are not that much different.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feli Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 >"Do you get such feelings when you use both 35mm and MF cameras? Same here. Usually I shoot Leica M, but also have a Rolleiflex. I don't use it as often, but everytime I hang those big negs up to dry it puts a smile on my face. feli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 Panatomic in 35mm came out in the 1930's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_evans4 Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 <p>Raid, you'll have to carry your film, because it's likely to get fried if you check it in. But you can't carry your film, because your bags will be full of all the photographic gear you're carrying. No problem, because in Nagoya (which I believe is your destination) they actually sell 120 film. (Here, Nagoya somewhat resembles <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CEYC">Rome</a>.) Yes, it may cost more than it costs in the Youess. Well, live with it: the extra money you'll spend will be trivial compared with your other expenses.</p><p>And when you've exposed it, you can have it developed in Japan.</p><p>Meanwhile, the consensus among informed people seems to be that the effect of X-rays on carry-on luggage is much less than that of cosmic radiation when you're aloft. Google for details.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_laepple Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 Each thing at its time. I can use ISO 100 film in 35mm when I need perhaps ISO 400 film in MF because of the slower MF lenses. What blows what away? An ISO 400/120 an ISO 100/135? I have my doubts (but never made a comparison so far). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_allan Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 Hi Raid On the effect of the carry on x-ray scanners. I have had film through the scanners six times on one trip, with no apparent ill effects. The film was a mix of - Fuji NPH 400 colour neg, Fuji Velvia 100F, Fuju Provia 400F, and Ilford FP4+, and HP5+. Hope this helps. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now