Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Films, formats

Subject: [OM] Re: Films, formats
From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:22:47 -0800 (PST)
Omnivore Bob wrote:
>...PanF is really an outstanding film if you can get used to
>the speed.  it's on the slow side, but when you make an 11x14
>from this you will be blown away!

Absolutely blow you away.  Limited by your lenses, not the film.
 This does tie into Walt's film format/lens tirades--which I'll
get into in a second.

>I also have to admit that Ag turned me on to the Delta 400. 
>I'm much more of a Tri-X man, but the Delta far exceeds its
>big yellow counterpart.  Developed in DD-X it has a nice grain
>structure and excellent acuity.

The key here is DD-X.  Delta 400 in DD-X is glorious.  Think
Tri-X with 1/2 stop more on each side.  Also, the grain is
TIGHT!  Tighter than a Scot with constipation.  (that's why they
eat the Haggis).  The grain does not bloom when push processed. 
You can shoot/process it at 400 or 800 with little to no
difference.  Pushed to 1600, it's still mighty fine.  (just
don't xray it).

There is one other ISO 400 film combination that I like. 
Ilford's HP5+ normally lacks the "sparkle" that Tri-X has.  Just
something about the tonalities that have always been a bit
inferior to Tri-X.  However, processed in DD-X, 1:9 for 13
minutes (I think, I've got to double check my development chart
in the darkroom), it holds to a true ISO 400 (no need to
overexpose), the tonalies are a dead-ringer for Tri-X, and the
grain is less mushy without getting nasty.  Absolutely the best
general-purpose setup for medium and large formats.  Decent with
35mm.

I have been doing the 1:9 dilution with PanF+ too and really
like it.  The tonalities are slightly different, but not a bad
different, just different enough that you won't be able to
exactly match two rolls developed the two methods.  The grain
picks up some acutance.  PanF+ has a tendency to look mushy and
this addresses that.

A lot of debate through the years has ensued regarding lens
sharpness and which format is sharper.  I know the theories, but
theories don't mean squat when in the hands of people that
yabber instead of take pictures with said equipment.

Through the years I've done quite a bit of side-by-side shooting
between the OMs and various other larger formats. Mamiya C66 had
an extremely sharp wide-angle lens, but produced softer results
in normal and telephoto than the equivelent Zuikos.  Mamiya 645j
with standard 80mm lens was definitely softer than the Zuikos. 
Mamiya 23 (6x7 format) was usually softer than the Zuikos. 
Crown Graphic (4x5) is sometimes sharper. The lens on this
camera has a couple good spots, but otherwise is marginal.

These are final print comparisons with same subject size.  Now,
what does this mean and is this the end-all comparison?

Sharpness and overall image quality are two distintly different
animals.  Sharpness is a componant of image quality, but isn't
image quality.

Case in point.  My "Windswept" photo was taken with a Zuiko
35/2.8 with a couple of filters mucking up the image path.  The
processor screwed up my roll of film (I decided never to have
anybody else process my B&W after that) and overdeveloped the
HP5 in Tmax developer (yuck, yuck, yuck) so bad that the grain
clumped to no end.  In reality, the negative is toast.  So much
ballooning happened and the grain so obnoxious that "sharpness"
is a metaphor not reserved for this picture, although the
grain's acutance is so high that the apparant sharpness is off
the chart.

Recently I shot the scene again with Delta 100 in 4x5. 
Sharpness is almost fake, it's so sharp.  With the 35mm shot,
you can see what appears to be stains in the vicinity of nails
in the siding.  In the 4x5 shot, you can make out the nails
themselves. From 100 feet away, the camera was able to capture
detail so fine that you can see splinters in the wood!  It would
be totally impossible for ANY 35mm camera to achieve this level
of detail because of physical limits of resolution.  The film
format just won't cope.

Size DOES matter.  A lens's ability to resolve linepairs is only
part of the equation.  Full tonal scale is the primary advantage
to larger formats.  Earlier I stated my OM shots were sharper
than the Mamiya shots.  This is true, however, it isn't the full
story.  The medium-format shots have better gradients, enlarge
easier, have less grain and typically have better image quality
even though they frequently are less sharp.

With smaller formats, the subject matter in the photo has to be
much stronger to overcome the weaknesses of the format.  With
larger formats, you have different battles to fight, but
resolution isn't typically one of them.

Now, Bob, I'll know that you are healed from your vegetarian
ways when you try my ribs.

AG-Schnozz

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe

To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus 
List Problem"

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz