The lost craft of photography?

[ancient_mariner]

I was thinking back to when I used film seriously, and moving to medium format helped solve many of the qulaity issues I was complaining about earlier, because most 35mm film simply isn't capable of delivering great image quality. I still have pictures hanging on my wall here at home taken with my Bronica that I printed myself, and they have that sense of depth that you get with a great image taken on full frame. It's not about the resolving power of the lens or the number of megapixels, but about the sense of depth that you get with certain kinds of images from certain kinds of gear.

 

[simon ess]

I love my Bronica SQ and my Rolleicord.

But I can't say I have a problem with 35mm quality.

I am a crap photographer but I don't see a lot wrong with this in quality terms; using Tri-x in an Olympus 35SP

img799 by Simon, on Flickr

 

[ancient_mariner]

I love my Bronica SQ and my Rolleicord.

But I can't say I have a problem with 35mm quality.

I am a crap photographer but I don't see a lot wrong with this in quality terms; using Tri-x in an Olympus 35SP

Mono often does deliver better in 35mm than colour, and note that I didn't say all 35mm film. But even back then (late 80s) there was something lacking in 35mm, and a larger film format helped provide more of what I wanted.

 

[ancient_mariner]

double post

 

[Deleted member 49428]

Always makes me chuckle on these threads when the mantra "you had to get it right in camera" comes out. Most of course didn't Its like the rose tinted glasses all come out and think back to everyone who had a camera was awesome and a mastercraftsman at the art, it really isn't true.

Hmm not sure I agree. Then like now the better and more "finished" your pics is out of camera the less you have to rectify and repair. Get the exposure right, you can't pull out detail that's not there. Get the composition as good as you can, 35mm negs or slides are Darned small enough already so why rely on heavy cropping or hours in darkroom (or in front of computer) to get rid of clutter or the like that wouldn't be there if you moved one step right,left,forward or......
And get out when the light is there, the good no great light. At a meaning in my local photo club people where entusiastic about images made by me and some pals but it cooled rapidly when we told them what time of day they were made "that early?.....what if I went out at noon?"

 

[simon ess]

and note that I didn't say all 35mm film.

I suppose the inference then is that there are some 35mm films that do deliver the quality you seek.

The obvious response then is use them and not the ones that don't.

I'm playing devil's advocate slightly.

I couldn't care less how people enjoy their photography. Everyone to their own, film or digital;composites, HDR, whatever. You do your thing, I'll do mine.

 

[Mr Badger]

I think there are fair points made on both sides here and I think it's down to the film used (and the resolution of scan to digitise) if you want fine detail and lack of 'grain'. Has this got enough detail for you?

Canon EOS-3, Canon 24-105L lens on 35mm Kodak Ektar 100, via high-res lab scan (resized for uploading to Flickr).

Americana by J White, on Flickr

Or this one on 35mm Ektar 100 using a Canon A1 with Canon 50mm f1.4, once again a lab scanned negative (resized for Flickr).

Forgotten Objects by J White, on Flickr

 

[ancient_mariner]

They look OK at this scale. How do they look printed 12X16?

I think it's down to the film used (and the resolution of scan to digitise) if you want fine detail and lack of 'grain'. Has this got enough detail for you?

It's not the grain, but I wonder if it's more to do with the medium and the way light enters and spreads through multiple layers of emulsion, plus the difficulty of keeping film absolutely flat. Mono often does better, and I suspect it may be the thinner emulsion, although the digitisation will also break an otherwise great image.

 

[Deleted member 49428]

They look OK at this scale. How do they look printed 12X16?



It's not the grain, but I wonder if it's more to do with the medium and the way light enters and spreads through multiple layers of emulsion, plus the difficulty of keeping film absolutely flat. Mono often does better, and I suspect it may be the thinner emulsion, although the digitisation will also break an otherwise great image.

I think youre spot on with that last sentense. Scanning is the achillesheel of analog. I have 35mm slides that are stunning projected with lots of detail, color etc, scanner they are meh

 

[Mr Badger]

Snip:

They look OK at this scale. How do they look printed 12X16? QUOTE]

Click on the image to open it in Flickr, then click on the image in Flickr to open it up and you can view them at about 15 x 20 and scroll about to look if your screen isn't big enough to show the whole image. I think you'll agree that they're not bad at all for a negative that's about the same size as a commemorative postage stamp, and a camera that isn't the size and shape of half a breeze block!

Yes, you'll certainly get more detail from medium format, but then again, large format will make that look a pretty poor relation, so where do we stop? In most cases, a well-exposed 35mm shot will be up to the job of 10x8 and probably 12x16 these days with modern high-quality films such as Ektar 100, Portra 800 (maybe not to 12x16?) and Fuji Acros 100, especially if traditionally wet printed in a darkroom. Don't get me wrong, I still shoot medium format (with vintage folders, box cameras and TLRs). so I enjoy the best of both worlds and the convenience of a large range of modern, image stabilised lenses if using my Canon EOS-3 35mm SLR. So what's not to like and enjoy about that?

Knowing what's best to use for the job to deliver the look and results you're looking for is part of the craft of photography, as is getting the best out of the 'wrong' kit if the circumstances conspire against you... how things dovetail, we're back on topic now.

 

[droj]

I have 35mm slides that are stunning projected with lots of detail, color etc, scanner they are meh

Scanned by whom and with what?