I made some B&W posters from 35mm and 120 format. I enlarged one shot
taken by contax G-1 with 28/2.8 lens which was ranked as the best of
the best. At 22X the photo is still of high quality(when viewed a
foot away and no comaprison is provided), yet the grain and sharpness
is at the limit(with fine grain film ASA100). another 35mm photo
taken by Canon F-1 with 50mm/3.5 Macro and ASA50 Pan-F(Ilford) was
slightly better due to the film speed. However, compare to my
Rolleiflex TLR, which at 24x24 and 24x20, the medium format beat 35mm
every time. If you like to get the max of your Olympus, try Agfa 25,
you can get to 24X20 if you get the darkroom work right.(just make
sure that the photo itself is interesting enough for that size).
35mm at the best condition, can achive 20X16 for musume quality.( I
sold some in this size from 35mm). but 120(6X6, 645 and 6X7) would
achive 16X20 as if 35mm enlarges to 8X10. So the heavyweight cannon
win every time in the naval wars when battleships was the king.
Richard
Shawn Wright <swright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 21 Sep 98, at 20:03, Joseph Albert wrote:
>
> > Of course, this calls into question whether one needs to go with the
> > more expensive floating-element wide-angles that have better
correction
> > of close focus aberrations. My own experiences with the 24/2.8
and 28/2.8
> > is that the close focus aberrations in the corners are only a
problem at
> > the more open apertures. So you need the f/2 versions of the lens
if you
> > are wanting to shoot at wide apertures. I have closeups of flowers
> > taken with a 24/2.8 Zuiko where the aberrations are so severe that
the
> > image falls apart in the corners. This is normal with retrofocus
lenses
> > that aren't floating element designs. However, these were also at
f/4
> > and a few at f/5.6. By f/5.6, the f/2.8 24mm and 28mm lenses are
fine,
> > but at closest focus I'd rather be at f/8 and below.
>
> Can you describe what you mean by falling apart? Is there a total
> loss in sharpness, or distortion, or both? Just curious, as the
> 24/2.8 is on my list, and I just picked up a Tamron 28 f2.8 in the
> interim.
>
> > someone else suggested that at 11x14 and even 16x20, 35mm was as
good
> > as 6x7. I have to disagree here. with very careful technique and
the
> > finest grained film you can get results with 35mm that rival
medium format,
> > but you won't get it with the same consistency as with a medium
format
> > camera. plus, with medium format you don't have to use the finest
> > grained materials that often are the most contrasty (Velvia, Ektar
25,
> > Tech Pan), but rather can get the medium format look with a wider
> > choice of film palettes.
>
> I'm not sure if you're referring to my post from last night here;
I've
> been known to be misunderstood when I start rambling... ;-) My
> point was that I have had a few shots which can be printed *very*
> sharp at 11x14 and beyond, which proves to me that 35mm *can*
> produce these results. But I admitted that I am *far* from doing this
> consistently, but it certainly is a goal of mine. Also, these results
> were on PanF, which as you mention, is among a group of fairly
> unforgiving films, making that consistency even harder to achieve.
>
> Someone else mentioned the lack of smooth tonality in 35mm
> enlargements, something which I have also noticed in some shots.
> I have a few shots taken with my old Yashica 6x6 which have a
> wonderful, warm buttery sort of tonality to them, even though they
> aren't all that sharp. With practice, I have come pretty close to
this
> with FP4+, but I'm comparing to a very old, low end TLR. I'm sure a
> high quality 6x6 would simply be stunning in this area.
>
> I guess what I'm saying (I'm rambling again...) is I think it's all
> about finding and pushing limits, both your own, and the
> equipment. In my case, a 6x7 would be wasted, as I'd produce just
> as many mediocre shots as on 35mm, and spend more time (and
> money) doing so. But many on the list are clearly much more in
> tune with there equipment, and their own abilities, and now see the
> need to raise the limit to a higher format.
>
>
> Shawn & Janis Wright
> swright@xxxxxxxxx
> http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/~swright
> (Olympus List Archives)
>
> < 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 >
>
>
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
< 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 >
|