>>Medium format? Who needs medium format when these new superiour films
>>like the improved Kodak Ektar 100 are available?
>
>You are fooling yourself if you think a 35mm system can compare to mf.
>Often 35mm will be "good enough" however and there are some things mf just
>can't do as well. I own lots of prime Zuikos but the mf gets used more
>often these days.
If you are talking about ISO 100 and slower films and even most 'chromes,
the 35mm format is quite adequate for most applications. However, when you
are looking at higher speed professional print films (Vericolor PPF and PMC,
and the Fuji and Afga equivelents), the grain is absolutely evident. I did
a 16x20 print from Fuji NPH that is definitely grainy. Had I shot it with
6x7, it would have been nearly grain free. Was the image still sharp and
sellable? Yes, but any faults in the lens (or your focusing) will be
magnified that much more too.
I used to shoot Ektar 25 for commercial studio work on 35mm. The results
were stunning and every bit as good as 6x6 in any film available in roll
format. (Ektar 25 wasn't available in 120/220 at the time). Obviously,
though, ISO 25 film is worthless when trying to shoot an indoor wedding.
Even ISO 400 film can be marginable.
Their are two other factors though when talking about film format.
Resolution and tonal gradiation. A film emulsion can be designed in such a
way that grain doesn't exist or it exists in an organized, non-visable way.
However these "grainless" emulsions still may not have the resolving power
and hence the sharpness that you need for extreme detail work or
enlargements. Tonal gradients and contrasts are lost through enlargements
and the more you enlarge, the more that gets lost. A 35mm negative will
need to be enlarged many more times than a 6x7 negative.
Ken N.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|