pico Posted February 9, 2011 Share #21  Posted February 9, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Pico Edward Weston...  and some of mine have to be manipulated as well, some?  Noel  Ah, Edward as in first name. Of course. Thanks.  Manipulation? I don't think I've had but a handful of 35mm enlargements greater than 5x7" that did not require some dodging and burning. The larger the negative, the less I have to manipulate - generally - but I am not a fine art photographer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Hi pico, Take a look here Where to start with a hand-held light meter for use with an M9?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lars_bergquist Posted February 9, 2011 Share #22 Â Posted February 9, 2011 Oh yes I dodged and burned in, and cleared dusty point highlights with Farmer's, and flashed paper, and toned with selenium. Some original prints by Edward Weston were an eye-opener (Weston was a splendid photographer, never mind his zonal ideas). Â And while I did some passable exhibition size prints from 35mm negs, those with the creamiest gradation were from 6x6cm roll film exposed in a Zeiss Super-Ikonta folder with a Tessar lens, c. 1957 vintage. And yes, some from a Mamiya Press RF camera, 6x9cm. Size mattered. What strikes me most is that with a M9, I can get IQ even better than that. Â The old man from the Selenium Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 9, 2011 Share #23 Â Posted February 9, 2011 And while I did some passable exhibition size prints from 35mm negs, those with the creamiest gradation were from 6x6cm roll film exposed in a Zeiss Super-Ikonta folder with a Tessar lens, c. 1957 vintage. And yes, some from a Mamiya Press RF camera, 6x9cm. Size mattered. What strikes me most is that with a M9, I can get IQ even better than that. Â I do not believe that. We must have different views on IQ. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 9, 2011 Share #24  Posted February 9, 2011 Moderator – I am not totally averse to starting a new thread called something like "Debunking the Zone System" and with a slightly (though not monstrously) long initial posting. And drawing some flak, I suppose. In what forum should I put it, if you give me the nod?  Lars Bergquist (the old man from the Flak Age) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 9, 2011 Share #25  Posted February 9, 2011 I do not believe that. We must have different views on IQ.  I cannot better the tonal range of negative film – and certainly not the range we half extracted and half constructed in the darkroom. But the tonal transitions are superb. And contrary to some opinion, the current aspherical lenses don't ruin them – I love that glass. It sure beats a Cooke Triplet!  And as we use colour, our comparison is not with Tri-X, but with Kodachrome – 10!  The old man from the Selenium Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted February 9, 2011 Share #26  Posted February 9, 2011 I cannot better the tonal range of negative film – and certainly not the range we half extracted and half constructed in the darkroom. But the tonal transitions are superb. And contrary to some opinion, the current aspherical lenses don't ruin them – I love that glass. It sure beats a Cooke Triplet! And as we use colour, our comparison is not with Tri-X, but with Kodachrome – 10!  The old man from the Selenium Age  Hi Lars  Lots of people think they are too contrasty, that is true of modern lenses in general...  Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 9, 2011 Share #27  Posted February 9, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) It's like the difference between hearing the music come through muted and muddied from a small loudspeaker, and from a pair of Sennheisers. These are Hi-Fi optics. We will learn to use them, just as once we learned to use the new-fangled anastigmat lenses. A century ago, some people condemned them too; some people simply don't like sharp lenses.  Or you might do as those people did – take up bromoil printing.  The old man from the Age of the Box Camera Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted February 9, 2011 Share #28  Posted February 9, 2011 Hi Lars  Bromoils are nice.  And when does the exposure re-training start?  Littlo chance of flack over Stockhom, Belfast in WWII was interesting.  Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 9, 2011 Share #29  Posted February 9, 2011 Moderator – I am not totally averse to starting a new thread called something like "Debunking the Zone System" and with a slightly (though not monstrously) long initial posting. And drawing some flak, I suppose. In what forum should I put it, if you give me the nod?  It would probably be best in the Film forum. Just start a new thread there.  I cannot better the tonal range of negative film – and certainly not the range we half extracted and half constructed in the darkroom. But the tonal transitions are superb. And contrary to some opinion, the current aspherical lenses don't ruin them – I love that glass. It sure beats a Cooke Triplet!  Tonal transition - do you mean huge transition? I think to compare we would need examples, which are impossible online. Darn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted February 10, 2011 Share #30 Â Posted February 10, 2011 Graham. I use the Gossen Digisix and have for a number of years. I usually have it in my right hand pocket, so I can always be learning about light. It is very small & accurate. I highly recommend it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 10, 2011 Share #31  Posted February 10, 2011 Tonal transition - do you mean huge transition? I think to compare we would need examples, which are impossible online. Darn.  I mean the smooth transitions between different, adjacent tonal values. The grain in small negatives did rough them up. This – plus of course the greater resolution – was what we used large negatives for.  The old man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 11, 2011 Share #32  Posted February 11, 2011 I mean the smooth transitions between different, adjacent tonal values. The grain in small negatives did rough them up. This – plus of course the greater resolution – was what we used large negatives for. The old man  Larger formats usually have lesser resolution, however they do not require as great enlargement as 35mm. Same thing, I know, it is about degree of enlargement. Is it not astounding that my 8x10" enlarger can only do 4X? It produces a ~40" print. 35mm would make a 5.5" print at 4X. Personally, I like small prints because I can view them normally in-hand rather than walking across the room. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 11, 2011 Share #33 Â Posted February 11, 2011 The difference beween a print from a 35mm neg and one from medium format was quite visible even in a 18x24cm (roughly 8x10") print. And that size is comfortably viewed with the print held in your hand. You can make a decent-looking 10x15cm or 4x6" print from just about anything. And the photofinishers knew that. Â The old man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 11, 2011 Share #34 Â Posted February 11, 2011 Lars, when did enlarging become commonplace? Â All our old family pictures were contact prints from post-card size negatives. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 11, 2011 Share #35 Â Posted February 11, 2011 Lars, when did enlarging become commonplace? Â All our old family pictures were contact prints from post-card size negatives. Â Enlarging did not become practical until after WWI, with the advent of the electrically lighted vertical enlarger. Fast bromide or chloro-bromide papers, equally important, arrived early in the 1930's. Â I can speak of the European situation only. Leitz's first really useful variable enlarger, the VALOY, was offered in 1932. Before that, 35mm photographers used fixed-ratio "enlargement cones". But the general run of Sunday photographers were satisfied with contact prints from their 6x9cm or equivalent folding cameras. I remember my parents handing in their rolls of 120 film ("6x9 large spool") for developing and printing. Most people's accommodations did not permit a darkroom, in any case. I learned to handle 35mm in the Swedish Air Force in 1957! Â There was also a 6.5x11cm roll film format, which died with the 1930's. People wanting larger formats (for printing contact, of course) usually went to 9x12cm glass plate negs. I am not quite sure about the situation in the U.S.A. Â The old man from the Dark Ages Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted February 11, 2011 Share #36  Posted February 11, 2011 Hi  Film sizes used to be big, my families snaps from 30s were all 6x9 contacts, larger ones were formal studio shots, probably off plate cameras.  History of Kodak Roll Film Numbers  Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 11, 2011 Share #37 Â Posted February 11, 2011 [...] I learned to handle 35mm in the Swedish Air Force in 1957! Â Did you fly Saabs? And is it true you used highways for runways? Â And thank you for the enlarger information. -- Pico from the age of Upper Heyford Voodoos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.