Latest luminous landscape test
MLIDDELL
"to my eyes images from the 16Mp Canon 1Ds MKII are awfully close to
those from drum scanned 645 format Velvia."
Interesting since he concluded in other tests that the 1Ds mkII was
better than drum scanned 6x7.
2
news:1148233358.4...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml
Note the quote in the article: "Studio strobes would have ruled out the
BetterLight comparison. "
Well DUH!
wilt
resolution. We did not look at or evaluate dynamic range, colour
accuracy, noise, or any of several other performance parameters. Not
that these aren't interesting, or even important. "
Everyone should keep in mind that when testing film SLR, 35mm vs
MedFmt, medium format used to always win that comparison, with same
film in both cameras. The reason was the increased tonality and color
rendition caused by larger amounts of film devoted to the same amount
of subject are. Nobody seemed to care about resolution back then,
nobody tried to say 'same resolution from 35mm as MedFmt'. And all the
larger film formats would win the comparison over 35mm overall.
Now people look at images on monitors and render judgements, after
seeing tests run and published on the web. They forget that monitors
do not have the same dynamic range. Find me a monitor that can show
more than the ability to easily distinguish more than 16 levels of
grey, for example. Yet they render judgements and come to conclusions
with results seen with this limited media
Raphael Bustin
>Now people look at images on monitors and render judgements, after
>seeing tests run and published on the web. They forget that monitors
>do not have the same dynamic range. Find me a monitor that can show
>more than the ability to easily distinguish more than 16 levels of
>grey, for example. Yet they render judgements and come to conclusions
>with results seen with this limited media
Huh? A properly profiled and calibrated CRT or LCD monitor
should be able to distinguish at least 256 levels of gray.
Even low-end LCD monitors nowadays have at least a 500:1
contrast ratio. That means they're good for nearly nine bits
of dynamic range. It's on prints that dynamic range usually
suffers.
A grayscale wedge should demonstrate that easily. Prowl
around these two sites to find some --
http://www.normankoren.com/color_management_2A.html
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor_calibration.htm
If you can't see more than 16 grayscale levels, your monitor's
woefully foobar'ed.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Mike Young
news:rjf172p1oevv4dqf3...@4ax.com...
> On 21 May 2006 11:54:26 -0700, "wilt" <wi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Now people look at images on monitors and render judgements, after
>>seeing tests run and published on the web. They forget that monitors
>>do not have the same dynamic range. Find me a monitor that can show
>>more than the ability to easily distinguish more than 16 levels of
>>grey, for example. Yet they render judgements and come to conclusions
>>with results seen with this limited media
>
>
> Huh? A properly profiled and calibrated CRT or LCD monitor
> should be able to distinguish at least 256 levels of gray.
> Even low-end LCD monitors nowadays have at least a 500:1
> contrast ratio. That means they're good for nearly nine bits
> of dynamic range. It's on prints that dynamic range usually
> suffers.
Huh? :)
Yeah, 16 levels of grey [sic] sounds hokey, but I'm sure he could only have
meant 16 *stops*. That's a long stretch for most people; I hardly see the
point of his stretching that for the discussion.
Fiber paper gets about 13 stops with careful exposure and processing. Toned
platinum gets more. Plasma screens (not LCD monitors) are just now coming
around to 10000:1 contrast ratios, or a touch more than 13 stops
(2^13.2877).
The monitor's 9 stops (500:1) and 256 levels loses easily. One advantage of
larger film formats, aside from resolution and detail, is "increased
tonality and color rendition", he said. I doubt anybody shooting MF can
disagree.
> A grayscale wedge should demonstrate that easily. Prowl
> around these two sites to find some --
Shucks, man! :) Proves his point. The discrete steps in wedges aren't at all
what we're after.
Raphael Bustin
<boat04...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Raphael Bustin" <f...@bar.com> wrote in message
>news:rjf172p1oevv4dqf3...@4ax.com...
>> On 21 May 2006 11:54:26 -0700, "wilt" <wi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Now people look at images on monitors and render judgements, after
>>>seeing tests run and published on the web. They forget that monitors
>>>do not have the same dynamic range. Find me a monitor that can show
>>>more than the ability to easily distinguish more than 16 levels of
>>>grey, for example. Yet they render judgements and come to conclusions
>>>with results seen with this limited media
>>
>>
>> Huh? A properly profiled and calibrated CRT or LCD monitor
>> should be able to distinguish at least 256 levels of gray.
>> Even low-end LCD monitors nowadays have at least a 500:1
>> contrast ratio. That means they're good for nearly nine bits
>> of dynamic range. It's on prints that dynamic range usually
>> suffers.
>
>Huh? :)
>
>Yeah, 16 levels of grey [sic] sounds hokey, but I'm sure he could only have
>meant 16 *stops*. That's a long stretch for most people; I hardly see the
>point of his stretching that for the discussion.
16 stops is absurd, for any physical imaging media that I
know of, digital or analog.
>Fiber paper gets about 13 stops with careful exposure and processing. Toned
>platinum gets more. Plasma screens (not LCD monitors) are just now coming
>around to 10000:1 contrast ratios, or a touch more than 13 stops
>(2^13.2877).
13 stops for paper is absurd. That's nearly four decades.
Show me a paper with a DR beyond the mid or high-2 range
(decade log scale.) I don't believe it exists.
You're claiming nearly 10^4 for reflective images.
A cite would be useful here. I say your numbers
(for paper) are seriously inflated.
>Shucks, man! :) Proves his point. The discrete steps in wedges aren't at all
>what we're after.
On my monitor I can see the difference between 0 and 1,
or the diff between 254 and 255, in 8-bit RGB, using the
luminance (composite) channel, in Photoshop.
It's easy enough to test. Grayscale gradients are smooth.
16 *steps* is crazy, as is 16 *stops*. 128 or 256 discernable
levels (per color) is realistic for a typical monitor with decent
calibration.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Phil Stripling
wilt <wi...@aol.com> wrote:
> The reason was the increased tonality and color
> rendition caused by larger amounts of film devoted to the same amount
> of subject are.
I used to see comparisons in the photo magazines, with prints of
slides. The photographer would photograph a tree, for example, then
print without enlargement the same area on the tree trunk, one print
from 35mm, the other from 6x6 or whatever, showing how much more of the
transparency was devoted to the same area of the trunk and pointing out
how many more grains of dye were allocated to the same subject area in
medium format. Not only did the larger size of medium format mean you
didn't have to enlarge the tranny as much, but it meant that more
"storage" was devoted to recording the details. The grains were the
same size, unlike squeezing more, smaller, cells into a CCD device, but
there were more of them being used to record the data (to use current
jargon).
> Nobody seemed to care about resolution back then,
Well, some people did tests on lines per millimeter, but it was
generally for special purpose films, not for consumers' general use
color or black and white print film. But resolution, as I understand
it, had a completely different meaning back then. The issue was whether
a film could 'resolve' details down to certain levels of fineness.
(Line pairs per mm was the test, as I recall.)
> nobody tried to say 'same resolution from 35mm as MedFmt'. And all the
> larger film formats would win the comparison over 35mm overall.
And properly so. :-) People who brought out the big iron to take photos
got respect. :->
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
2
news:hw9cg.13491$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> "Raphael Bustin" <f...@bar.com> wrote in message
> news:rjf172p1oevv4dqf3...@4ax.com...
>> On 21 May 2006 11:54:26 -0700, "wilt" <wi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Now people look at images on monitors and render judgements, after
>>>seeing tests run and published on the web. They forget that monitors
>>>do not have the same dynamic range. Find me a monitor that can show
>>>more than the ability to easily distinguish more than 16 levels of
>>>grey, for example. Yet they render judgements and come to conclusions
>>>with results seen with this limited media
> Fiber paper gets about 13 stops with careful exposure and processing.
Are you _sure_ about that? Is it worth a gentleman's bet? I say 5 stops for
nominal #2 paper.
Greg "_"
Raphael Bustin <f...@bar.com> wrote:
> You're claiming nearly 10^4 for reflective images.
> A cite would be useful here. I say your numbers
> (for paper) are seriously inflated.
5 useful stops is it :)
--
The sometimes insomniac.
Greg "_"
2
"Greg "_"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote in message
news:grey_egg-2D1C3A...@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <1273uqq...@news.supernews.com>,
> For once we agree :)
It is the random thing.:)
Peace,
John
Darrell Larose
"MLIDDELL" <marko....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148233358.4...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Raphael Bustin
I see numbers of around 2.0 on a decade log scale for
inkjet prints. Seems you ought to be able to beat that
(by at least a small amount) with a good optical print.
So I say 8 or 9 bits (ie., stops) on photo paper.
This graph from Kodak shows "Ultra Endura" has a
dynamic range in the mid-2s (depending on color channel.)
<http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4020/f009_0520ac.gif>
Kodak Polymax paper curves -- low 2s:
<http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/g7/g7.jhtml#010>
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Mike Young
news:1273uqq...@news.supernews.com...
Hmmm. Looks like I'll be eating those words. (Munch, munch.) I'm looking at
a plot of step wedge reflective densitometer values from a few years back,
for Ilford MG IV FB. Densest black is -2.12 (#2 filter); call it 7 stops.
Other filters are slightly less dense, down to -2.07 for #00. The plots for
KRST tops out at 2.33 (3:00 minutes, dilution unspecified; less dense for
shorter and longer times).
Beats me where I got 13 stops from.
"Raphael Bustin" <f...@bar.com> wrote in message
news:20b272tuqp5fnj8tg...@4ax.com...
> 16 *steps* is crazy, as is 16 *stops*. 128 or 256 discernable levels (per
> color) is realistic for a typical monitor with decent calibration.
Yup. Wish I could find that crack pipe now; seem to have misplaced it after
last night.
All the same, though, the tonality difference in larger formats is real.
This is still consistent with your being able to discern all 256 steps on
your monitor.
The truth is, I do much more digital than I do B&W wet prints. It's easy to
lose the tones, especially with just a bit of sharpening. I've learned to
not lose sleep over it.
gol...@gmail.com
years but still do some 6x6 and 6x7 scanned on Nikon 8000ed. I haven't
printed and MF in the darkroom for a couple of years.
I've a Canon eos-1ds m1. The resolution is fantastic, BUT the richness
of colour and natural appearance of scanned MF, from film or tranny
beats it. Full stop.
Robert Feinman
marko....@gmail.com says...
Luminous Landscape is run by a seemingly nice fellow who has adopted
digital in steps over the past few years. His audience is mostly
those making the same journey. Because of this he has been able to
make a nice career for himself. If he were to come out with tests
that said "give up digital and use film" nobody would visit his
site or buy his services. I'm not saying he is dishonest, just that
he concentrates on helping others get the most from digital and as
a convert he has certain prejudices. Probably for most of the uses
he has (including some fairly large prints) what he does comes out
well.
As for dynamic range or number of wedge steps or whatever:
reflective media (that is paper) can produce about 50:1 contrast
range (maybe up to 100:1 with glossy paper). The darkest regions
reflect about 1-2% of the light and the brightest about 90-100%.
Transmissive media (video screens or projected transparencies) can
do up to 1000:1 in darkened rooms with no stray light. Probably in
most setting is more like 200:1 or so.
The number of steps that can be seen in an image has to do with
the contrast. For paper with a 50:1 ratio obviously one can't expect
to see more than 50 distinct steps. You can modify the contrast curve
so that you can see more steps in the shadows but then the highlights
get compressed.
Inkjet printers only produce about 65 distinct steps on output
regardless of how many steps you feed them or whether you use 8
or 16 bit images. This has to do with the way they combine their
individual dots into a group to represent one image pixel. Video
displays have similar limitations due to the color matrix used to
generate different shades.
I have a discussion of this in the tips section of my web site,
for the obsessive.
--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: robert....@gmail.com
2
> Without getting into the whose "resolution" debate again, two points:
> Luminous Landscape is run by a seemingly nice fellow who has adopted
> digital in steps over the past few years. His audience is mostly
> those making the same journey. Because of this he has been able to
> make a nice career for himself. If he were to come out with tests
> that said "give up digital and use film" nobody would visit his
> site or buy his services. I'm not saying he is dishonest, just that
> he concentrates on helping others get the most from digital and as
> a convert he has certain prejudices. Probably for most of the uses
> he has (including some fairly large prints) what he does comes out
> well.
Robert, are you also a freelance public relations writer? A counselor? :)
Well put, and I agree the site is well done, clearly an advocate of
digital. While I am a skeptic, I still read the site. We can think for
ourselves, make our own decisions.
Peter Chant
> Robert, are you also a freelance public relations writer? A counselor? :)
> Well put, and I agree the site is well done, clearly an advocate of
> digital. While I am a skeptic, I still read the site. We can think for
> ourselves, make our own decisions.
All well put.
What I have seen missing from this thread regarding contrast and dynamic
range is that surely we want to record as much dynamic range as we can. We
can't gain it later in post processing, be that digital or darkroom. Then
we can chose what we display taking into account the properties of the
display system (that includes paper).
Pete
Mike Young
news:MPG.1edcd02f...@news.acedsl.com...
> The number of steps that can be seen in an image has to do with
> the contrast. For paper with a 50:1 ratio obviously one can't expect
> to see more than 50 distinct steps.
Maybe this will become obvious if I think on it some more, but right this
moment, there doesn't appear to be a direct connection between contrast
ratio and perceptible steps. How about a little clarification?
Greg "_"
"Mike Young" <boat04...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Maybe this will become obvious if I think on it some more, but right this
> moment, there doesn't appear to be a direct connection between contrast
> ratio and perceptible steps. How about a little clarification?
Let me guess: you haven't read much on the zone system-or sensitometry
More so than ever these issues become of importance to photo and
sensitometry is valid for digital stuff too.
Peter
I don't think there is such a direct connection.
>From Mees' The Fundementals of Photography" Kodak London 1921 p. 83:
"With any 'velvet' surface paper such as Velvet Velox,
we shall find that the white paper will reflect about twenty-
five times as much light as the deepest silver deposit.
The number of distinct tones which are included in this
range from white to black depends, of course, on the ability
of the eye to distinguish them. The eye can actually see
about 100 distinct tones in such a range."
Peter,
--
pir...@ktb.net
Mike Young
> In article <MGMcg.34580$Lm5....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Mike Young" <boat04...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Maybe this will become obvious if I think on it some more, but right this
>> moment, there doesn't appear to be a direct connection between contrast
>> ratio and perceptible steps. How about a little clarification?
>
> Let me guess: you haven't read much on the zone system-or sensitometry
References, please. From my desk, I can still see the Adams trilogy and
Davis's "Beyond ..." poking from near the middle of the book heap. There are
a few others in there with varying merit of content.
The statement made was: [
"Robert Feinman" <robert....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1edcd02f...@news.acedsl.com...
> The number of steps that can be seen in an image has to do with
> the contrast. For paper with a 50:1 ratio obviously one can't expect
> to see more than 50 distinct steps.
]. The relationship isn't so directly obvious to me at this moment.
Specifically, 50 steps of tone in a 5.6 stop range seems unrelated to
anything I can point at as obvious.
Robert Feinman
pir...@ktb.net says...
tones" one can see depends upon several factors. Generally the
stronger the light intensity the smaller the differences that can
be discerned. Generally a 1% (or in bright light 1/2%) change in
brightness can be seen as a different tone. Take a photo outside
in the sunlight and you will be able to see much more detail in
the dark portions of the print than in normal indoor lighting.
So, using the 1% figure for indoor viewing I estimate about 50
distinct tones under normal conditions. The low light used in
galleries and museums reduces this even further.
One really should create the output for the specific conditions
that the print will be viewed in. This includes not only the
intensity of the lighting but the color balance as well.
Frank Pittel
: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml
I stopped going to luminous landscape a long time ago. The site is setup
to prove to the world that digital photography is as good as film. I'd like
to see a print test. Someone can take a photo with a digital camera and make
the best print they can. I'll make an exposure with my 4x5 and Mamiya 645
and make the best print I can make from the negatives. From there we compare
the prints.
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
Frank Pittel
: "MLIDDELL" <marko....@gmail.com> wrote in message
It gets even worse. When the scanner outperforms the dslr he'll lower the
resolution of the scan add sharpening to the images. In general he'll muck
with the images until the dslr gives a better result and uses that as proof
that digital is as good or better then film.
Tony Polson
>I stopped going to luminous landscape a long time ago. The site is setup
>to prove to the world that digital photography is as good as film. I'd like
>to see a print test. Someone can take a photo with a digital camera and make
>the best print they can. I'll make an exposure with my 4x5 and Mamiya 645
>and make the best print I can make from the negatives. From there we compare
>the prints.
Well said. Luminous Landscape, like so many other digital sites,
starts off with the premise that digital is better than film. Then
they find all the data that might support that conclusion, while
quietly omitting to mention any data that supports any other point of
view. The whole is then presented as conclusive evidence of the
initial assertion, which of course was never allowed to be questioned.
Digital enthusiasts have been doing this for years. Way back when a
1.0 MP digital camera represented the best available technology, the
enthusiasts proclaimed that 1.0 MP was definitely as good as 35mm
film. Then the 2.0 MP cameras arrived. They were definitely as good
as 35mm film. So were the 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 MP cameras, and the 6.0 MP
cameras that followed.
Then along came 8.0 MP, 11.0 MP and 16.7 MP. They were definitely as
good as 35mm film too, just like their 1.0 MP forebears.
It is amazing what people will believe, just because they want to.
;-)
Peter Chant
>
> It gets even worse. When the scanner outperforms the dslr he'll lower the
> resolution of the scan add sharpening to the images. In general he'll muck
> with the images until the dslr gives a better result and uses that as
> proof that digital is as good or better then film.
I'd advise you to avoid rec.photo.digital then. Someone there is stating
that scanned 35mm film is at best only approaching a 6M pix point and
shoot.
IMHO the answer is far more complex.
Peter
> >
> Not to quarrel too much with Dr. Mees, but the number of "distinct
> tones" one can see depends upon several factors. Generally the
> stronger the light intensity the smaller the differences that can
> be discerned. Generally a 1% (or in bright light 1/2%) change in
> brightness can be seen as a different tone. Take a photo outside
> in the sunlight and you will be able to see much more detail in
> the dark portions of the print than in normal indoor lighting.
1% difference would give 70 different tones per stop unless
I am missing something.
> So, using the 1% figure for indoor viewing I estimate about 50
> distinct tones under normal conditions.
I don't get why. You have to compound 1% about 70 times
in order to get a 2:1 ratio. Maybe I'm missing something
obvious and I will understand the next time you explain it.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Greg "_"
Peter Chant <pe...@petezilla.co.uk> wrote:
rec.digital is more for amusement than serious information,....for that
matter so are most of these groups :)
Just shows what 6mp P&Ser's know.
David J. Littleboy
> MLIDDELL <marko....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> : "to my eyes images from the 16Mp Canon 1Ds MKII are awfully close to
> : those from drum scanned 645 format Velvia."
>
> : Interesting since he concluded in other tests that the 1Ds mkII was
> : better than drum scanned 6x7.
>
> I stopped going to luminous landscape a long time ago. The site is setup
> to prove to the world that digital photography is as good as film. I'd
> like
> to see a print test. Someone can take a photo with a digital camera and
> make
> the best print they can. I'll make an exposure with my 4x5 and Mamiya 645
> and make the best print I can make from the negatives. From there we
> compare
> the prints.
That's exactly what he did in the original 6x7 vs. 1Ds test, and it's what
got him in trouble.
He found that at 255 ppi, 1Ds files produced lovely prints, prints as nice
as he wanted, more than adequate for gallery display. He found, quite
naturally, that 6x7 at that size really didn't look any better. IMHO, this
is exactly what anyone who didn't mess up the workflow would find.
The problem was that he _talked_ about 13x19 prints, when he was actually
leaving fat borders on the paper and only making 10.6 x 16 inch prints.
At a real 13 x 19, the 1Ds is down to 200 ppi, which is beginning to be
problematic if you expect your viewers to come in for a somewhat closer
look.
At a real 13x19, making gorgeous prints from 6x7 is like falling off a log,
but the 12MP cameras (1Ds, D2x, 5D) cameras are just beginning to be
problematic _for close viewing_. (The 5D does pretty well at 220 ppi, but
you really have to take it easy on the sharpening.)
Since he didn't get into the problematic range, he didn't find any problems.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Robert Feinman
pir...@ktb.net says...
in dark regions and, perhaps, smaller in the brighter ones.
So if you want to assume 70 steps, that's find with me. As I
originally said most inkjet printers only produce about 65 distinct
steps as well.
If you want to really pursue the subject find a nice text book
on visual perception. This field has been extensively studied
for nearly 200 years.
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >I stopped going to luminous landscape a long time ago. The site is setup
: >to prove to the world that digital photography is as good as film. I'd like
: >to see a print test. Someone can take a photo with a digital camera and make
: >the best print they can. I'll make an exposure with my 4x5 and Mamiya 645
: >and make the best print I can make from the negatives. From there we compare
: >the prints.
: Well said. Luminous Landscape, like so many other digital sites,
: starts off with the premise that digital is better than film. Then
: they find all the data that might support that conclusion, while
: quietly omitting to mention any data that supports any other point of
: view. The whole is then presented as conclusive evidence of the
: initial assertion, which of course was never allowed to be questioned.
I've found that what they do is even worse. They pit the strengths of
digital and pit them against the weaknesses of film.
: Digital enthusiasts have been doing this for years. Way back when a
: 1.0 MP digital camera represented the best available technology, the
: enthusiasts proclaimed that 1.0 MP was definitely as good as 35mm
: film. Then the 2.0 MP cameras arrived. They were definitely as good
: as 35mm film. So were the 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 MP cameras, and the 6.0 MP
: cameras that followed.
: Then along came 8.0 MP, 11.0 MP and 16.7 MP. They were definitely as
: good as 35mm film too, just like their 1.0 MP forebears.
I do have to admit that the long ago discontinued 4meg Sony P&S that I have
will give me a print from my Epson-2200 that can hold it's own against 35mm.
Then again the lack of tonality and detail has a lot to do with why I don't
use 35mm much anymore! :-) What's interesting is that the prints that I've
seen by the new dslrs don't give prints all that much better then what I get
from my p&s. None of them do as well as my Mamiya.
: It is amazing what people will believe, just because they want to.
Most people don't have any trouble convincing themselves of what they want to
believe.`
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel wrote:
I've got a long ago discontinued 4meg Sony p&s that can hold it's own against
a wet darkroom print from c41 35mm. The prints are 8x10. Of course I don't think
much of 35mm and think that 8x10 is pushing it ability to be enlarged. While
I prefer the colors I get from a wet darkroom c41 print the prints that I get
from my 2200 look good. Any advantage that I might get from 35mm are lost
when compared to the local control I have with PS!
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> I do have to admit that the long ago discontinued 4meg Sony P&S that I have
> will give me a print from my Epson-2200 that can hold it's own against 35mm.
> Then again the lack of tonality and detail has a lot to do with why I don't
> use 35mm much anymore! :-)
I suggest that you should try it again with better film and developer.
There are lots of good films still available in 35mm, good cameras with
sharp high contrast lenses and decent developers out there.
Where you won't find them is in cheap autofocus cameras with their wide
range, but small apeture range zooms, and T-grain films with developers
that where chosen for fast consistent processing in machines.
I remember taking some photographs with an early Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF lens on
tech-pan and developing them in Edwal FG-7 around 1988. For the heck of it
I stuck a negative in a microfice machine and printed it at 42x. The
picture was still sharp.
Just about every negative that I developed in FG-7 had a wider tonal
range than the paper I used, although I prefered Multigrade RC paper
without a filter.
Personaly I think the begining of the end was Kodak HC-110.
I think FG-7 is still made, try some Ilford PAN-F or Efke/ORWO/ADOX
(whatever they call themselves this week) KB-25.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel g...@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel wrote:
: > I do have to admit that the long ago discontinued 4meg Sony P&S that I have
: > will give me a print from my Epson-2200 that can hold it's own against 35mm.
: > Then again the lack of tonality and detail has a lot to do with why I don't
: > use 35mm much anymore! :-)
: I suggest that you should try it again with better film and developer.
: There are lots of good films still available in 35mm, good cameras with
: sharp high contrast lenses and decent developers out there.
: Where you won't find them is in cheap autofocus cameras with their wide
: range, but small apeture range zooms, and T-grain films with developers
: that where chosen for fast consistent processing in machines.
: I remember taking some photographs with an early Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF lens on
: tech-pan and developing them in Edwal FG-7 around 1988. For the heck of it
: I stuck a negative in a microfice machine and printed it at 42x. The
: picture was still sharp.
: Just about every negative that I developed in FG-7 had a wider tonal
: range than the paper I used, although I prefered Multigrade RC paper
: without a filter.
: Personaly I think the begining of the end was Kodak HC-110.
: I think FG-7 is still made, try some Ilford PAN-F or Efke/ORWO/ADOX
: (whatever they call themselves this week) KB-25.
I was using Fuji's NPS and had developed at a local lab. The camera was a
Canon EOS3 and I was using the 28mm-135mm zoom with IS.
Greg "_"
Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
Frank-there are plenty of great tonal scale images created from thirty
five mm cameras. The only draw back is not every image on the roll
with that rare perfect image may be in the realm of keepers or or award
winning. Don't get to hung up on any of it lots of images insures some
will be spectacular,....less means not so many choices.
> : It is amazing what people will believe, just because they want to.
>
> Most people don't have any trouble convincing themselves of what they want to
> believe.`
So true.
Greg "_"
g...@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote:
> Frank Pittel wrote:
> > I do have to admit that the long ago discontinued 4meg Sony P&S that I have
> > will give me a print from my Epson-2200 that can hold it's own against 35mm.
> > Then again the lack of tonality and detail has a lot to do with why I don't
> > use 35mm much anymore! :-)
>
> I suggest that you should try it again with better film and developer.
>
> There are lots of good films still available in 35mm, good cameras with
> sharp high contrast lenses and decent developers out there.
>
> Where you won't find them is in cheap autofocus cameras with their wide
> range, but small apeture range zooms, and T-grain films with developers
> that where chosen for fast consistent processing in machines.
>
> I remember taking some photographs with an early Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF lens on
> tech-pan and developing them in Edwal FG-7 around 1988. For the heck of it
> I stuck a negative in a microfice machine and printed it at 42x. The
> picture was still sharp.
>
> Just about every negative that I developed in FG-7 had a wider tonal
> range than the paper I used, although I prefered Multigrade RC paper
> without a filter.
>
> Personaly I think the begining of the end was Kodak HC-110.
>
> I think FG-7 is still made, try some Ilford PAN-F or Efke/ORWO/ADOX
> (whatever they call themselves this week) KB-25.
>
> Geoff.
Things really started to suck with the discontinuance of Panatomic X,
VPS & Ektachrome 64 :)
Peter
> In article <1148517825....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> pir...@ktb.net says...
> > Robert Feinman wrote:
> >
> > > So, using the 1% figure for indoor viewing I estimate about 50
> > > distinct tones under normal conditions.
> >
> > I don't get why. You have to compound 1% about 70 times
> > in order to get a 2:1 ratio. Maybe I'm missing something
> > obvious and I will understand the next time you explain it.
> >
> > Peter.
> >
> Well 1% is an average number. The step size needs to be greater
> in dark regions and, perhaps, smaller in the brighter ones.
That seems clear. The visible difference between a reflection
density of 1.8 and 2.0 is tiny if it exists at all, while on the
white end of the scale a difference of one tenth that will show
as degraded whites.
> So if you want to assume 70 steps, that's find with me.
That's not something I want to assume. Your 1% difference
figure translates into seventy steps per stop. 1.01^70 = 2.
Until I see something authoritative and more modern, I'm going
with Dr. Mees' estimate of 100 distinct steps on matt paper with
a 25 to 1 range. It would appear that the number of steps visible
on glossy paper should be only a little higher because the extra
tones visible on glossy papers are all blacks.
> If you want to really pursue the subject find a nice text book
> on visual perception. This field has been extensively studied
> for nearly 200 years.
It there a particular text that is really worth looking for?
Something for vision comparable to Yost's text on hearing?
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Frank Pittel
: In article <-pidnboDI_7Ev-vZ...@giganews.com>,
: Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
About 99% of my exposures are done on 4x5 with most of the rest being MF.
I shoot about 10 rolls of 35mm a year. If you spend 6 months printing 4x5
negatives on 11x14 fiber paper and then try printing a 35mm negative on 8x10
RC paper you'll know why I feel the way I do about 35mm. :-)
Frank Pittel
: In article <slrne7cb7...@cable.mendelson.com>,
Have you tried Efke-25? You'll miss panatomic X a lot less!! :-) When
did ektachrome 64 get discontinued?
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> Things really started to suck with the discontinuance of Panatomic X,
> VPS & Ektachrome 64 :)
I don't think it was ever made in 120, but Ektar 25 was IMHO the best color
negative film ever made.
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> About 99% of my exposures are done on 4x5 with most of the rest being MF.
> I shoot about 10 rolls of 35mm a year. If you spend 6 months printing 4x5
> negatives on 11x14 fiber paper and then try printing a 35mm negative on 8x10
> RC paper you'll know why I feel the way I do about 35mm. :-)
That brings up an interesting philosophical question. If you put as much care
into the 35mm exposures, including choice of equipment, choice of film,
processing and printing, how much different would it be?
There are lots of 35mm cameras and lenses out there, some good, some bad, some
excelent, some trash. Even in this "downsized" world, there are lots of choices
of regular 35mm available and many, many developers. Of course it's a lot
easier in 4x5, there are less options, and you don't need to magnify it as
much to get the same size print.
Also 35mm, due to the design of the cameras makes it much easier to
"point and shoot", even with a top of the line camera. You could easily
take a whole roll of 35mm film in the time it takes to set up a 4x5 camera,
so it may not be a fair comparison.
I'm not saying that you should ditch the medium and large format cameras
for 35mm, I just saying that you can't claim the medium is bad. For example,
IMHO a PROPERLY exposed and developed 35mm T-MAX negative will out do a
TRI-X negative developed in HC-110 dilution "A" (which is still used by
some commercial labs) either in medium format or 4x5.
There are a lot better films than T-MAX, especialy if you don't understand
how to expose or develop it, and a lot better developers than HC-110.
If you choose your materials carefully, then you can get good results,
if you choose them poorly, you get lesser results.
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> Have you tried Efke-25? You'll miss panatomic X a lot less!! :-) When
> did ektachrome 64 get discontinued?
Two different people here. I was using ADOX KB-14 in the late 1960's.
I just wish I could get it now. :-( RSN I'm going to order a roll or
two from German. Hopefully the will not be X-rayed, hand inspected (opening
the cans to see it's really film), or treated as a business because
I am importing more than two rolls. (don't get me started, we've beat
that thread to death on r.p.e.35mm)
I'd also love to get a bottle of FG-7, but no one seems to import it,
and it's now no longer transportable by air, so I can't ask someone to
bring me a bottle in their luggage.
Besides the lower red response, the biggest difference to me between
KB-25 (KB-14 changed speed rating from DIN 14 to ISO 25, but it's the
same film) was that the ADOX/ORWO/EFKE product seems to be coated on
plastic wrap, while PAN-X was coated on "FILM" (much heavier stock).
David J. Littleboy
>
>> About 99% of my exposures are done on 4x5 with most of the rest being MF.
>> I shoot about 10 rolls of 35mm a year. If you spend 6 months printing 4x5
>> negatives on 11x14 fiber paper and then try printing a 35mm negative on
>> 8x10
>> RC paper you'll know why I feel the way I do about 35mm. :-)
>
> That brings up an interesting philosophical question. If you put as much
> care
> into the 35mm exposures, including choice of equipment, choice of film,
> processing and printing, how much different would it be?
>
> There are lots of 35mm cameras and lenses out there, some good, some bad,
> some
> excelent, some trash. Even in this "downsized" world, there are lots of
> choices
> of regular 35mm available and many, many developers. Of course it's a lot
> easier in 4x5, there are less options, and you don't need to magnify it as
> much to get the same size print.
Lets be more blatant: I've seen _gorgeous_ 8x10s from 35mm. There's nothing
wrong with 35mm at 8x10 _if you bust your butt and get it right_.
At 11x14, though, the story is different. With 645, an 11x14 is under a 7x
enlargement, and even the slightest bit of care will create prints that 35mm
can't dream of _with currently available films_.
So Frank's claim up there is a tad off: 8x10s from 35mm look no worse than
an 8x10 crop of any photographic print. Assuming viewing distance over 3"
and without a loupe.
But an 11x14 from any larger format makes 35mm seem ridiculous _because 35mm
can't do that level of quality at 11x14_, and 8x10s seem pretty wimpy after
11x14s.
> I'm not saying that you should ditch the medium and large format cameras
> for 35mm, I just saying that you can't claim the medium is bad. For
> example,
> IMHO a PROPERLY exposed and developed 35mm T-MAX negative will out do a
> TRI-X negative developed in HC-110 dilution "A" (which is still used by
> some commercial labs) either in medium format or 4x5.
You are probably dead wrong about 4x5: at 11x14, 4x5 is a 3x enlargement,
and any film will hold up to that, but 35mm at 11x14 is a 12x enlargement
from the film, and even TMAX is going to be losing it. (At a 12x
magnification, the "microcontrast" is going to be shot all to hell, since
the 5 lp/mm detail on the print comes from 60 lp/mm detail on the film, and
the MTFs of the lens, film, and enlarging system are all way down at 60
lp/mm (and MTFs multiply, getting worse at each step).)
But your comparison is silly; people concerned with quality shoot the same
films in MF as you do in 35mm.
> There are a lot better films than T-MAX, especialy if you don't understand
> how to expose or develop it, and a lot better developers than HC-110.
> If you choose your materials carefully, then you can get good results,
> if you choose them poorly, you get lesser results.
There aren't any films better than TMAX 100 that are actually in production.
2
news:slrne7dcf...@cable.mendelson.com...
> I'd also love to get a bottle of FG-7, but no one seems to import it,
> and it's now no longer transportable by air, so I can't ask someone to
> bring me a bottle in their luggage.
Bummer. I have two never-opened gallons of FG-7 and had not planned to use
it.
> Besides the lower red response, the biggest difference to me between
> KB-25 (KB-14 changed speed rating from DIN 14 to ISO 25, but it's the
> same film) was that the ADOX/ORWO/EFKE product seems to be coated on
> plastic wrap, while PAN-X was coated on "FILM" (much heavier stock).
Plastic wrap? What do you mean?
2
> That brings up an interesting philosophical question. If you put as much
> care
> into the 35mm exposures, including choice of equipment, choice of film,
> processing and printing, how much different would it be?
I began on 35mm. Heck, I made a whole career using 35mm, and had the
excellent fortune of eventually having the best of the best. (Leica Ms,
Nikon-F, Focomat enlargers with Nikkor glass), and I was an accomplished
enough printer that I was sought out for custom printing when I retired.
Then one day I picked up a 2 1/4 and it was a new world. Then on to 4x5, and
it just got that much better. As a printer, I say bigger is better. As a
photographer, I'm in limbo still wishing they made a rangefinder 6x9 today.
I am still a rangefinder fanatic. Loved the Leica M2.
That said, I still love 35mm prints, even on 16x20" paper in all their
grainy glory, although printing is more difficult. I've some astoundingly
sharp images done with Tri-X and D-76 1:1. Grain is my friend.
David J. Littleboy
"2" <nh...@droffats.ten> wrote:
>
> Then one day I picked up a 2 1/4 and it was a new world. Then on to 4x5,
> and it just got that much better. As a printer, I say bigger is better. As
> a photographer, I'm in limbo still wishing they made a rangefinder 6x9
> today. I am still a rangefinder fanatic. Loved the Leica M2.
The Fuji 6x9 rangefinders are said to be excellent. (The 60/4.0 on the
plastic fantastic GS645S is amazing.) Then there's the Mamiya 7. The Bronica
RF645 has the nicest rangefinder I've ever put my eye to. Lots of options
out there.
> That said, I still love 35mm prints, even on 16x20" paper in all their
> grainy glory, although printing is more difficult.
Yep. 35m types are like that. Completely beyond my comprehension. For my
tastes in prints, 35mm is for 8x10, 645/6x6 for 11x14, and 6x7 for 13x19.
Anything larger than that and I'd want a larger format.
> I've some astoundingly sharp images done with Tri-X and D-76 1:1. Grain
> is my friend.
I hate it. When I look at grainy images, I see a whole image that takes on
the texture of the grain, which completely hides the texture of whatever was
behind the grain in the subject. Completely bogus, IMHO.
Frank Pittel
: > About 99% of my exposures are done on 4x5 with most of the rest being MF.
: > I shoot about 10 rolls of 35mm a year. If you spend 6 months printing 4x5
: > negatives on 11x14 fiber paper and then try printing a 35mm negative on 8x10
: > RC paper you'll know why I feel the way I do about 35mm. :-)
: That brings up an interesting philosophical question. If you put as much care
: into the 35mm exposures, including choice of equipment, choice of film,
: processing and printing, how much different would it be?
I use the same film in all three formats. That is by design and it helps me
get the exposure and composition right. As we all know different films have
different characteristics<SP?> that make them good or bad for different
situations.
: There are lots of 35mm cameras and lenses out there, some good, some bad, some
: excelent, some trash. Even in this "downsized" world, there are lots of choices
: of regular 35mm available and many, many developers. Of course it's a lot
: easier in 4x5, there are less options, and you don't need to magnify it as
: much to get the same size print.
I've got a number of 35mm cameras and even more lenses. Some are very good
and some are a joke.
: Also 35mm, due to the design of the cameras makes it much easier to
: "point and shoot", even with a top of the line camera. You could easily
: take a whole roll of 35mm film in the time it takes to set up a 4x5 camera,
: so it may not be a fair comparison.
I agree that there's a time and place for 35mm. That's why I go through 10 rolls
of 35mm a year. :-)
: I'm not saying that you should ditch the medium and large format cameras
: for 35mm, I just saying that you can't claim the medium is bad. For example,
: IMHO a PROPERLY exposed and developed 35mm T-MAX negative will out do a
: TRI-X negative developed in HC-110 dilution "A" (which is still used by
: some commercial labs) either in medium format or 4x5.
: There are a lot better films than T-MAX, especialy if you don't understand
: how to expose or develop it, and a lot better developers than HC-110.
: If you choose your materials carefully, then you can get good results,
: if you choose them poorly, you get lesser results.
Although I've switched to Efke-25 as my general purpose film. I spent many
years using Tmax-100 and during that time I felt it was the best film on
the market.
I don't want this to turn into a flame war. We should be battling the "film
is dead and you should all ditch your film cameras and go digital types"
rather the battle each other. While I agree that good work can be done with
35mm when making prints 8x10 or larger it doesn't compare with larger formats.
Bill Hilton
>
>I don't think it was ever made in 120, but Ektar 25 was IMHO the best
>color negative film ever made.
It was definitely available in 120 ... I used to carry a few rolls and
shoot them when the contrast was too high for slide film, back around
1990 or so ... agree with you that it was "the best color negative film
ever made" ...
I think it was just too slow for the masses.
Bill
Lassi Hippeläinen
> ... We should be battling the
> "film is dead and you should all ditch your film cameras and go digital
> types" rather the battle each other.
Konica-Minolta dropped film cameras, Nikon almost, and now there is a rumour
that even Canon will pull out. No more R&D, and eventually also
manufacturing will stop.
-- Lassi
2
> The Fuji 6x9 rangefinders are said to be excellent. (The 60/4.0 on the
> plastic fantastic GS645S is amazing.) Then there's the Mamiya 7. The
> Bronica RF645 has the nicest rangefinder I've ever put my eye to. Lots of
> options out there.
Okay. You have my attention. Do these cameras need batteries?
> I hate it. When I look at grainy images, I see a whole image that takes on
> the texture of the grain, which completely hides the texture of whatever
> was behind the grain in the subject. Completely bogus, IMHO.
I understand that. It's an acquired thing. We know we know the subject below
the grain, then the grain becomes part of imaging. It's hard to explain.
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel wrote:
There will be plenty of cameras available on ebay for decades!
Frank Pittel
: > Frank Pittel wrote:
: >
: >> About 99% of my exposures are done on 4x5 with most of the rest being MF.
: >> I shoot about 10 rolls of 35mm a year. If you spend 6 months printing 4x5
: >> negatives on 11x14 fiber paper and then try printing a 35mm negative on
: >> 8x10
: >> RC paper you'll know why I feel the way I do about 35mm. :-)
: >
: > That brings up an interesting philosophical question. If you put as much
: > care
: > into the 35mm exposures, including choice of equipment, choice of film,
: > processing and printing, how much different would it be?
: >
: > There are lots of 35mm cameras and lenses out there, some good, some bad,
: > some
: > excelent, some trash. Even in this "downsized" world, there are lots of
: > choices
: > of regular 35mm available and many, many developers. Of course it's a lot
: > easier in 4x5, there are less options, and you don't need to magnify it as
: > much to get the same size print.
: Lets be more blatant: I've seen _gorgeous_ 8x10s from 35mm. There's nothing
: wrong with 35mm at 8x10 _if you bust your butt and get it right_.
Agreed. There are just to many things that you have to get perfect with 35mm.
In the long run I would rather get a dslr then hoping to get everything perfect
with 35mm. It's a lot easier to fix imperfections and I wouldn't have to bust my
butt for an 8x10 print. I've got nothing against 35mm. I just prefer the larger
formats.
: At 11x14, though, the story is different. With 645, an 11x14 is under a 7x
: enlargement, and even the slightest bit of care will create prints that 35mm
: can't dream of _with currently available films_.
: So Frank's claim up there is a tad off: 8x10s from 35mm look no worse than
: an 8x10 crop of any photographic print. Assuming viewing distance over 3"
: and without a loupe.
I'll match an 8x10 crop of an 11x14 print made from a 4x5 negative against an
8x10 print made from a 35mm negative any day.
: But an 11x14 from any larger format makes 35mm seem ridiculous _because 35mm
: can't do that level of quality at 11x14_, and 8x10s seem pretty wimpy after
: 11x14s.
After an extended period of time working with 11x14 prints made from 4x5 negatives
an 8x10 print made from a 35mm negative leaves a lot to be desired!
: > I'm not saying that you should ditch the medium and large format cameras
: > for 35mm, I just saying that you can't claim the medium is bad. For
: > example,
: > IMHO a PROPERLY exposed and developed 35mm T-MAX negative will out do a
: > TRI-X negative developed in HC-110 dilution "A" (which is still used by
: > some commercial labs) either in medium format or 4x5.
: You are probably dead wrong about 4x5: at 11x14, 4x5 is a 3x enlargement,
: and any film will hold up to that, but 35mm at 11x14 is a 12x enlargement
: from the film, and even TMAX is going to be losing it. (At a 12x
: magnification, the "microcontrast" is going to be shot all to hell, since
: the 5 lp/mm detail on the print comes from 60 lp/mm detail on the film, and
: the MTFs of the lens, film, and enlarging system are all way down at 60
: lp/mm (and MTFs multiply, getting worse at each step).)
: But your comparison is silly; people concerned with quality shoot the same
: films in MF as you do in 35mm.
I shoot the same film in all formats. It's easier for me.
: > There are a lot better films than T-MAX, especialy if you don't understand
: > how to expose or develop it, and a lot better developers than HC-110.
: > If you choose your materials carefully, then you can get good results,
: > if you choose them poorly, you get lesser results.
: There aren't any films better than TMAX 100 that are actually in production.
I used to agree with you until I tried Efke-25!! I fell in love with after only
3 or 4 prints!
Frank Pittel
: > Have you tried Efke-25? You'll miss panatomic X a lot less!! :-) When
: > did ektachrome 64 get discontinued?
: Two different people here. I was using ADOX KB-14 in the late 1960's.
: I just wish I could get it now. :-( RSN I'm going to order a roll or
: two from German. Hopefully the will not be X-rayed, hand inspected (opening
: the cans to see it's really film), or treated as a business because
: I am importing more than two rolls. (don't get me started, we've beat
: that thread to death on r.p.e.35mm)
: I'd also love to get a bottle of FG-7, but no one seems to import it,
: and it's now no longer transportable by air, so I can't ask someone to
: bring me a bottle in their luggage.
: Besides the lower red response, the biggest difference to me between
: KB-25 (KB-14 changed speed rating from DIN 14 to ISO 25, but it's the
: same film) was that the ADOX/ORWO/EFKE product seems to be coated on
: plastic wrap, while PAN-X was coated on "FILM" (much heavier stock).
You may want to try tfx-2 from Photographers Formulary (www.photoformulary.com).
If you can't get them to ship it to you let me know and I'll get you the
formula for FX-2 if you don't mind mixing your own. I use a semi-stand
development. At 73F (don't ask) I agitate so that the fill time and agitation
add up to 1min. After that 5sec every three min. The compensation in the shadows
and highlights is incredible as is the sharpness and tonality.
Frank Pittel
: "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com> wrote in message
: news:slrne7dcf...@cable.mendelson.com...
The base of the film is very thin. Also the emulsion is very soft so be
sure to use a hardening fixer.
David J. Littleboy
"2" <nh...@droffats.ten> wrote in message
news:127epnl...@news.supernews.com...
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>> The Fuji 6x9 rangefinders are said to be excellent. (The 60/4.0 on the
>> plastic fantastic GS645S is amazing.) Then there's the Mamiya 7. The
>> Bronica RF645 has the nicest rangefinder I've ever put my eye to. Lots of
>> options out there.
>
> Okay. You have my attention. Do these cameras need batteries?
The Mamiya 7 does, the Fuji GW690III and GSW690III do not. (They're out of
production, though.) Right after Fuji cancelled them, they were in short
supply here, and when I finally found one to handle, I didn't fall in love
with the way it handled, so I bought a Mamiya 7. Part of it is that 65mm on
6x9 is neither particularly wide nor normal, whereas 65mm on 6x7 is my
prefered "normal", and the Mamiya also has the 43 and 50 lenses, which are
lengths I like a lot. 6x7 is a tad squatter than I like, so I'm either
cropping away a lot of film or printing something I composed to the format
smaller than the paper. Grr. But even cropped to 1:1.414, 6x7 is really
really nice.
I used to not sympathize with people who object to batteries, but I had a
battery die at an inopportune time a couple of years ago, so replace all
three (Mamiya 7, Mamiya 645, and Pentax spot) at the same time every year,
and it runs into serious money, since the batteries are over US$50 each.
Andrew Price
<dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>The Fuji 6x9 rangefinders are said to be excellent. (The 60/4.0 on the
>plastic fantastic GS645S is amazing.) Then there's the Mamiya 7
It seems to be a very nice camera, but I've always been a bit puzzled
by the 6x7cm format - what are its advantages compared with the
classic 6x6 or 6x9 negatives?
David J. Littleboy
6x7 is to make 8x10 and 16x20 prints. It's close to 11x14 and 20x24 as well.
So it's a sensible size. It's a bit odd for A-series prints, though.
When you make an A-series aspect ratio (1:1.414) print, 6x7 is 70 x 49.5 mm
of film.
6x6 and 645 are 56 x 40 mm.
That's a 25% difference, and you'll see it in landscape work at anything
over 13x19, and maybe at 13x19.
But 6x9 is 56 x 79, which is larger still.
Greg "_"
Andrew Price <ajp...@free.fr> wrote:
6x7 is proportional to 8x10- as is 6.45
Greg "_"
David J. Littleboy
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>> 6x6 and 645 are 56 x 40 mm.
>
> 6x6 is not 56x40. We can call it 56x56 :)
It's 56x40 when you make a 1:1.414 print.
Square is a disaster; you either waste 1/3 of the film or 1/3 of the paper.
2
> You may want to try tfx-2 from Photographers Formulary
> (www.photoformulary.com).
> If you can't get them to ship it to you let me know and I'll get you the
> formula for FX-2 if you don't mind mixing your own. I use a semi-stand
> development. [...]
I thought you might enjoy Efke 25, Frank. We almost had wars about TMax. I
stuck to my guns. :)
You might try Rodinal 1:100 for 45 minutes with zero agitation after the
first minute. Six films in one tank. It becomes an exhaustion process. Can't
overdevelop. Awesome compensation.
2
"Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>
> : Plastic wrap? What do you mean?
>
> The base of the film is very thin. Also the emulsion is very soft so be
> sure to use a hardening fixer.
Mine sure ain't thin. I am beginning to wonder if there were variations. Oh,
and AOK on the hardener, especially if someone is coming from TMax.
2
news:e57vq1$nia$1...@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "2" <nh...@droffats.ten> wrote
>> Okay. You have my attention. Do these cameras need batteries?
>
> The Mamiya 7 does, the Fuji GW690III and GSW690III do not. (They're out of
> production, though.) Right after Fuji cancelled them, they were in short
> supply here, and when I finally found one to handle, I didn't fall in love
> with the way it handled, so I bought a Mamiya 7. Part of it is that 65mm
> on 6x9 is neither particularly wide nor normal, whereas 65mm on 6x7 is my
Looks like I had better sell some stuff. I've just done some reading and the
43mm lens appears to be fantastic, superior to the 47mm Super-Angulon which
I use on 6x9 (nominal).
I have an 8x10 sky camera to put on that auction site. Maybe it will help
out.
Greg "_"
"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> "Greg "_"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote:
> > "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 6x6 and 645 are 56 x 40 mm.
> >
> > 6x6 is not 56x40. We can call it 56x56 :)
>
> It's 56x40 when you make a 1:1.414 print.
>
> Square is a disaster; you either waste 1/3 of the film or 1/3 of the paper.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
Jeesh - David say what (I-you) mean :)
Square was not devised with you in
mind. The format came about from either the need to fit into the average
column width and the desirable nature to graphics people to have a
cropping choice, horizontal, vertical, or uncropped. Or from wedding
photographers wanting the images all in the same orientation for proof
books. Cropped 6x6 "Is " basically 6.45
Stacey
> "Greg "_"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote:
>> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 6x6 and 645 are 56 x 40 mm.
>>
>> 6x6 is not 56x40. We can call it 56x56 :)
>
> It's 56x40 when you make a 1:1.414 print.
>
> Square is a disaster; you either waste 1/3 of the film or 1/3 of the
> paper.
>
You also don't have to hold the camera sideways. I think that was kinda
the point especially with a WLF. Most pro's don't feel the minor film waste
is an issue. That's more an amateur concern isn't it?
--
Stacey
Frank Pittel
: In article <e5860i$p6m$1...@nnrp.gol.com>,
I always thought that 6x6 was for people that can't make up their minds! :-)
Other then for TLRs I don't understand the reason for it.
Frank Pittel
: "2" <nh...@droffats.ten> wrote in message
You don't want to know how much they cost here in the US. Next time you need
batteries ask here and maybe someone can mail them to you.
Frank Pittel
: "Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com>:
: > You may want to try tfx-2 from Photographers Formulary
: > (www.photoformulary.com).
: > If you can't get them to ship it to you let me know and I'll get you the
: > formula for FX-2 if you don't mind mixing your own. I use a semi-stand
: > development. [...]
: I thought you might enjoy Efke 25, Frank. We almost had wars about TMax. I
: stuck to my guns. :)
Most of my opinions about Tmax haven't changed. I do have to admit that I miss
the two stops that I lost with Efke-25. Some days more then others. :-) I
understand that there is an "fx" formulation that's optimised for T-grained film.
I'm thinking of giving it a try. If you were to ever try developing Tmax
properly you'd also think it's one of finest films on the market.
: You might try Rodinal 1:100 for 45 minutes with zero agitation after the
: first minute. Six films in one tank. It becomes an exhaustion process. Can't
: overdevelop. Awesome compensation.
I tried Rodinal many years ago and while I know people that have gotten good results
from Rodinal I don't like it and never will.
David J. Littleboy
I guess not.
> The format came about from either the need to fit into the average
> column width and the desirable nature to graphics people to have a
> cropping choice, horizontal, vertical, or uncropped. Or from wedding
> photographers wanting the images all in the same orientation for proof
> books.
You forgot the Internet, where vertical images don't fit at all so you might
as well display squares.
But I suspect that the excuses for square came after the fact not before it.
The thing I hate the most about square is that I like it, and when I have a
square camera in hand I find that I take all square images that can't be
cropped and then get prints that are only 2/3 the size of prints from other
cameras. Question: how many of Ansel Adams compositions were square? The
'blad was his "camera of choice" (his words) from the instant Victor sent
him a prototype, but I can't think of any off hand that are square. (The
last image in "Examples" is square, all the others are rectangles.)
> Cropped 6x6 "Is " basically 6.45
Except that you have to use an 80mm image circle lens instead of a 70mm one,
which means your wide angles are less wide and/or slower. And it's a pain to
compose to a rectangle in a square viewfinder. There's no excuse for square.
Of course, my next camera purchase is going to be a Rolleiflex<g>. I have a
50s Tessar 'flex and the shutter release lock seems incredibly likely to get
snapped off when open, and I'd hate to mess up this lovely camera, so I'm
thinking about getting a 3.5F.
Stacey
> "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote:
> : In article <e5860i$p6m$1...@nnrp.gol.com>,
> : "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
> : > "Greg "_"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote:
> : > > "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> : > >
> : > >> 6x6 and 645 are 56 x 40 mm.
> : > >
> : > > 6x6 is not 56x40. We can call it 56x56 :)
> : >
> : > It's 56x40 when you make a 1:1.414 print.
> : >
> : > Square is a disaster; you either waste 1/3 of the film or 1/3 of the
> : > paper.
> : >
> : > David J. Littleboy
> : > Tokyo, Japan
>
> : Jeesh - David say what (I-you) mean :)
>
>
> : Square was not devised with you in
> : mind. The format came about from either the need to fit into the average
> : column width and the desirable nature to graphics people to have a
> : cropping choice, horizontal, vertical, or uncropped. Or from wedding
> : photographers wanting the images all in the same orientation for proof
> : books. Cropped 6x6 "Is " basically 6.45
>
> I always thought that 6x6 was for people that can't make up their minds!
> :-)
>
> Other then for TLRs I don't understand the reason for it.
WLF. Also a blad isn't real easy to hold sideways, even with a prism. As
far as that goes, the 6X4.5's really aren't easy to hold that way either.
--
Stacey
Stacey
> "Greg "_"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Square was not devised with you in mind.
>
> I guess not.
>
>> The format came about from either the need to fit into the average
>> column width and the desirable nature to graphics people to have a
>> cropping choice, horizontal, vertical, or uncropped. Or from wedding
>> photographers wanting the images all in the same orientation for proof
>> books.
>
> You forgot the Internet, where vertical images don't fit at all so you
> might as well display squares.
>
> But I suspect that the excuses for square came after the fact not before
> it.
It came about because they didn't want to deal with a prism finder. Ever try
to use a WLF sideways?
>
> The thing I hate the most about square is that I like it, and when I have
> a square camera in hand I find that I take all square images that can't be
> cropped and then get prints that are only 2/3 the size of prints from
> other cameras.
Who's fault is it that you can't compose for a crop?
> Question: how many of Ansel Adams compositions were square?
> The 'blad was his "camera of choice" (his words) from the instant Victor
> sent him a prototype, but I can't think of any off hand that are square.
Because he could visualise the crop when shooting as can many people.
>> Cropped 6x6 "Is " basically 6.45
>
> Except that you have to use an 80mm image circle lens instead of a 70mm
> one, which means your wide angles are less wide and/or slower. And it's a
> pain to compose to a rectangle in a square viewfinder.
-YOU- find it a pain, many people find it more of a pain to have to hold the
camera sideways, have flip flash brackets etc.
Why don't you get a nice maxwell gridline focus screen so you can see the
crop? That would solve your complaints..
--
Stacey
Nick Fotis
> Then one day I picked up a 2 1/4 and it was a new world. Then on to 4x5,
> and it just got that much better. As a printer, I say bigger is better. As
> a photographer, I'm in limbo still wishing they made a rangefinder 6x9
> today. I am still a rangefinder fanatic. Loved the Leica M2.
I propose you try a used Fuji GW690 - not too big, neither heavy (the III
series with the plastic body), full-mechanical (you'll need a lightmeter)
and a fantastic lens (90mm/3.5, nearly same field of view as a 39mm).
If you shoot landscape, the GSW690 with the 65mm/5.6 lens is very nice too
(equivalent to about 28mm). Both these models use 6*9cm format. The Fujinon
lenses are very sharp (some would say *too* sharp, especially with a
high-contrast film).
Both models have fixed lenses, which makes the combination very light and
easy to handhold (I have both). Also, both lenses take 67mm filters. The
leaf shutter means relatively quiet operation, and they synchronize with
flash at all speeds, up to their maximum 1/500".
If you prefer 6*7, there's Fuji GW670 as well. I have heard good things
about Mamiya 7 series (they can change lenses), but the prices are much
higher than the Fujis (available only used now).
Still I wish for a 200mm version though... The original GL690 with
interchangeable lenses had such a lens available (very hard to find).
Cheers,
N.F.
Nick Fotis
The 6*9 (or 135 film) have a side ratio of 1:1.5, which isn't very helpful
in vertical prints in magazine page (which tend to have a side ratio much
nearer to 6*7).
On the other side, if you are shooting landscape, 6*9 horizontally gives you
a breathing space for vistas (and 6*12 or 6*17 are still even more
impressive). And you can crop later ;-)
Cheers,
N.F.
Lassi Hippeläinen
> The 6*9 (or 135 film) have a side ratio of 1:1.5, which isn't very helpful
> in vertical prints in magazine page (which tend to have a side ratio much
> nearer to 6*7).
The 2:3 aspect ratio is the crime of Oscar Barnack. He wanted as much area
as was possible on a 35mm film, so he concatenated two 18x24mm frames to
get 36x24mm. Before Leica the common aspect ratio was about 5:7, or
sqrt(2), as is still used in the A- and B-series of papers. 3:2 is an
inconvenient compromise between sqrt(2) and the Golden Ratio.
The square format is another matter. I don't think it was in use anywhere
before photography. There was no artistic drive to it. But there are
engineering reasons. It maximises the frame size within the circle of
sharpness. But the real reason seems to be the Rolleidoskop, the stereo
camera by Dr. Heidecke. It used size 120 rolls, which defined the vertical
size. The lenses were set at the same distance from each other as human
eyes, which defined the horizontal size. They just happened to be almost
the same, so Dr. Heidecke decided to go for exact square.
The Rolleiflex used as many common components with the Rolleidoskop as
possible. Therefore it inherited (and eventually canonised) the square
format.
-- Lassi
Neil Gould
>
> The thing I hate the most about square is that I like it, and when I
> have a square camera in hand I find that I take all square images
> that can't be cropped and then get prints that are only 2/3 the size
> of prints from other cameras. Question: how many of Ansel Adams
> compositions were square? The 'blad was his "camera of choice" (his
> words) from the instant Victor sent him a prototype, but I can't
> think of any off hand that are square. (The last image in "Examples"
> is square, all the others are rectangles.)
>
I have no qualms about slicing the paper to fit the image. Nor am I one of
those folks who must print the film edge information as part of the
composition, so square formats and cropping a print to odd dimensions to
enhance the composition are just fine by me. ;-)
Neil
Neil Gould
>
> Why don't you get a nice maxwell gridline focus screen so you can see
> the crop? That would solve your complaints..
>
focus screens, so I really don't understand this particular complaint.
Neil
David J. Littleboy
"Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
> Recently, Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> posted:
>>
>> Why don't you get a nice maxwell gridline focus screen so you can see
>> the crop? That would solve your complaints..
>>
Correction _another_ Rolleiflex<g>.
> The Rolleis come with gridline
> focus screens, so I really don't understand this particular complaint.
The 'flex I have has a Maxwell screen with grid lines, but it doesn't work
for "seeing the crop". But do they really all have grid lines? I suspect
that there is a lot of variation in 'flex screens.
Anyway, I'll put up with square compositions and cropped paper with the
'flex. I don't do either square or the "normal" lens bit much so it
functions as a change of pace.
no_name
Or print it as art.
2
> paper.
Square paper was made. I just sold my last 250 sheet box of 10x10 Haloid.
David J. Littleboy
Just because someone will cut the paper in advance for you doesn't make your
trays any less rectangular or make that 10x10 any less smaller than the
11x14 the trays you have to use to print 10 x 10 will support.
Stacey
>
> "Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>> The Rolleis come with gridline
>> focus screens, so I really don't understand this particular complaint.
>
> The 'flex I have has a Maxwell screen with grid lines, but it doesn't work
> for "seeing the crop".
Then maybe this is a skill you should work on? You seem like a smart person,
I don't see why you can't teach yourself to see the crop when shooting if
you know it's a problem. Just count the gridlines that make the crop and
note where things are in the frame in relation to these lines. It's far
from rockect science or even the digital calculations/math I've seen you
post in the past. Seems odd someone can do those sorts of things yet can't
count grid lines? :-)
--
Stacey
2
news:e59lgl$5kc$1...@nnrp.gol.com...
Yer really reaching. It was a stock paper for years and years.
Neil Gould
> "Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>> Recently, Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> posted:
>>>
>>> Why don't you get a nice maxwell gridline focus screen so you can
>>> see the crop? That would solve your complaints..
>>>
>> David wants to puchase a Rolleiflex.
>
> Correction _another_ Rolleiflex<g>.
>
I thought you meant that, but was not sure, so I played it safe. ;-)
>> The Rolleis come with gridline
>> focus screens, so I really don't understand this particular
>> complaint.
>
> The 'flex I have has a Maxwell screen with grid lines, but it doesn't
> work for "seeing the crop".
>
Hmmm. Why not (I don't have a Maxwell screen)?
> But do they really all have grid lines? I
> suspect that there is a lot of variation in 'flex screens.
>
Both of my 'flexs -- an early '50s TLR w/stock screen, and a new 6008i --
have grid lines. It's a no-brainer to compose for either a vertically or
horizontally cropped image. Just ignore the stuff outside the grid, and if
you miss by a little in the narrow dimension, well, the image is there in
the film. ;-)
Neil
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> Plastic wrap? What do you mean? (re KB-25)
It is coated on a very thin film base, which compared to the older Kodak
films, feels like plastic wrap. Thin, flimsy, curls up. The emulsion is
IMHO great however.
Is the rool film better? It used to be the same.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel g...@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/
Greg "_"
"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
I like the newer Rollei's with the auto film advance and the ability
to accept a long roll back for 70mm.
Greg "_"
"Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
IIRC-Epson USA also provides 10x10 papers.
2
> I like the newer Rollei's with the auto film advance and the ability
> to accept a long roll back for 70mm.
Now that 70mm film is vanishing fast. Especially double-sprocket type?
Greg "_"
wrote:
Probably so, I won't be buying another MF camera. No matter how much
I like. When I looked at that Rollei It was beyond my price range, never
the less I understand they do except digital backs.
2
news:grey_egg-97819B...@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <127i42n...@news.supernews.com>, "2" <nh...@droffats.ten>
>> Now that 70mm film is vanishing fast. Especially double-sprocket type?
>
> Probably so, I won't be buying another MF camera. No matter how much
> I like. When I looked at that Rollei It was beyond my price range, never
> the less I understand they do except digital backs.
A used 'Blad still an outstanding investment for both film and that other
thing.
FWIW, I have a 70mm KE-6 (kit), three hundred feet of film left, then that's
it! :(
Mike Young
news:e59c1h$lsc$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> The 2:3 aspect ratio is the crime of Oscar Barnack. He wanted as much area
> as was possible on a 35mm film, so he concatenated two 18x24mm frames to
> get 36x24mm.
I don't suppose it matters that the prior art, 18x24, also was 2:3??
Stacey
Not sure where you went to school but my math shows that's 3:4.
--
Stacey
Mike Young
news:4e1mj1F...@individual.net...
:) Chicago. Public schools. I blame them entirely.
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel wrote:
Alas when I think of a wlf I think TLR. After all these years with my Mamiya
645s I haven't found a way to hold them that's "easy"! :-) In the end I always
seem to support the weight of them with my left hand. I focus with my right as
well as adjust the exposure and focus. Doing this with a camera that weighs ten
pounds isn't much fun and it doesn't matter how I orient the camera.
Before we get into any type of flame war I would like to ask you to look at the
post you were replying to. My comment about my thoughts of the 6x6 format had a ( :-) )
after it. In the end I don't care what format you or anyone else use as long as
you use film!!
Frank Pittel
: "Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >
: > : Plastic wrap? What do you mean?
: >
: > The base of the film is very thin. Also the emulsion is very soft so be
: > sure to use a hardening fixer.
: Mine sure ain't thin. I am beginning to wonder if there were variations. Oh,
: and AOK on the hardener, especially if someone is coming from TMax.
While I agree that compared to many other types of film the emulsion of Tmax
is hard enough that you would need a hammer and chisel to damage it. I have
found that the emulsion of Efke is particularly soft. I've come to a point
with it that I won't even touch the emulsion and am very carefull when using
a brush to clean off dust. That's with a hardening fix. I just wish that the
100 speed film had the same curve as the 25 and 50 ise films!! I really miss
those two stops of speed.
Stacey
> Doing this with a
> camera that weighs ten pounds isn't much fun and it doesn't matter how I
> orient the camera.
The weight is one reason why I like a WLF over a prism, makes the camera
MUCH lighter. I( shoot in landscape mode most of the time so a WLF on a
6X4.5 isn't a big problem and on a tripod I can deal with it, just is a bit
of a chore.
>
> Before we get into any type of flame war I would like to ask you to look
> at the post you were replying to.
No flame, just a reason why some people like 6X6, they can use a WLF.
--
Stacey
Tony Polson
>
>No flame, just a reason why some people like 6X6, they can use a WLF.
There are plenty of 35mm cameras with waist level finders. The Nikon
F5 is even available new (old stock).
Greg "_"
Tony Polson <t...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
The 35mm with a WLF is Not exactly a common place use or common
knowledge among photographers though. Where as those choosing MF are
more likely aware of the feature in 6x6 cameras,...... since a wide
array of 6x6 cameras have the feature.
Raphael Bustin
<gnn...@swissonline.ch> wrote:
>This does not mean, that I do not use digital cameras, but for real
>photography, I still use film and shall continue to use film, nothing
>else.
For "real" photography, I use light.
Surely you're not trolling, Dr. Nyman?
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Sander Vesik
> "Greg "_"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote:
> > "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 6x6 and 645 are 56 x 40 mm.
> >
> > 6x6 is not 56x40. We can call it 56x56 :)
>
> It's 56x40 when you make a 1:1.414 print.
>
> Square is a disaster; you either waste 1/3 of the film or 1/3 of the paper.
Just cut square pieces from the roll...
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++