Digital got me curious about film

I still shoot film. There's nothing really amazing about 35mm. Not the greatest for scanning and doesn't enlarge much.

But, I'll take 120 over 35mm any day and at times it's a way better option than digital.

Irrespective of any comparisons to 120, quality scans of 135 are certainly achievable, and whatever deficiencies might arise from scanning as opposed to wet print, I still prefer scanned Tri-X to any of the 1,000 or so digital color-to-bw conversions I've done. Then again, I love grain, and the tonal depth of is just more appealing.

The larger point, though, is regardless of what film camera you choose, once you decide that film is a usable medium, it opens the door for all formats, 135, 120, or even large format.

Depth wrote in post #9956576
I still shoot film. There's nothing really amazing about 35mm. Not the greatest for scanning and doesn't enlarge much.

That's like saying you can't do a 20"x30" print from an 8MP dSLR file.

Film enlarges as well as digital, and it does even better if you can scan it the best method possible at very high resolution. I've had 30"x40" prints from 35mm film scans made and they looked great. Remember that larger prints will be viewed from a farther distance.

The capture size and the lens quality are a lot more important to enlargeability than is the digital vs film question. To enlarge to 20x30 from a 35mm neg or a 35mm sensor is a 20x enlargement either way.

And larger prints are not necessarily viewed from a farther distance. Go to a gallery and people bury their noses in poster-sized prints, especially wide angle images.

Just a reminder, large prints are not always the goal for everyone.

sjones wrote in post #9957805
Just a reminder, large prints are not always the goal for everyone.

True -- this is a 4x5 inch contact print, one of my faves.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

The same thing that haunts us today, haunted us then, ... dust. I didn't shoot 35mm film unless I had to, a cheap client or the need for projected slides. Printing from a larger negative or scanning a larger transparency cuts down on dust problems. Film can also pick up grit from a dirty processor, something that's not uncommon today given the lower volume being run through them. On 35mm film it's very apparent and difficult to retouch.

Anyone considering shooting film should at least look at MF or LF as an option. You can buy very good MF and LF gear for a fraction of the original cost. If you do your own wet printing the difference is enormous. For color work even lower end DSLRs have surpassed 35mm film in my opinion. For B&W and long exposures film still holds the lead.

DrPablo wrote in post #9957363
And larger prints are not necessarily viewed from a farther distance. Go to a gallery and people bury their noses in poster-sized prints, especially wide angle images.

I compose for the entire image, not a small corner of it. Larger prints are generally made and bought to be seen from a farther distance, e.g. high up on a wall and to be seen without having to walk up to the frame.

HappySnapper90 wrote in post #9959449
I compose for the entire image, not a small corner of it. Larger prints are generally made and bought to be seen from a farther distance, e.g. high up on a wall and to be seen without having to walk up to the frame.

Compose however you want, but face the facts, in a gallery people are inches away. And they're also feet away. They go farther and closer to look at it from different angles. It's a fact of life, man. At the Ansel Adams exhibition I went to a few years ago, people were going face first against an 8x10 foot three-panel screen he printed, then backing away, then going up again.

The only way to prevent people from looking at it from up close is to put up an electric fence -- or as they do at museums in Russia like the Hermitage, maybe a babushka with a scowl.

The viewing distance people choose for a photo depends to a large degree on the focal length of the lens. People tend to look at wide angle pictures up close and telephoto pictures from farther away.

DrPablo wrote in post #9960378
The viewing distance people choose for a photo depends to a large degree on the focal length of the lens. People tend to look at wide angle pictures up close and telephoto pictures from farther away.

I'd say it's more to do with the subject matter and subject size in the frame than the focal length.

e-k

E-K wrote in post #9962541
I'd say it's more to do with the subject matter and subject size in the frame than the focal length.

Either way it's a self-selected viewing distance that is not based entirely on enlargement size.

The oft talked about "magic" viewing distance is the focal length times the enlargement factor, which gives you an optical relationship with the print that is identical to the camera's original optical relationship with the subject. People self-select a viewing distance based on how they can best apprehend the picture, and the relationship of subjects within a picture is partly determined by the focal length of the lens. A 20mm and a 300mm lens, even keeping the principle subject the same size in the foreground, will have dramatically different background content.

"Partly determined by" and "depends to a large degree" are two separate things. All I'm saying is that it isn't anything inherent with the focal length so much as how it is (typically) used.

An extreme example would be photographing a wall. There's no significant perspective involved so changing the focal length doesn't significantly change the image. For a portrait which fills the frame I may recognise some "distortion" of the image as a viewer when using a wide angle but I would guess most people aren't interested in getting up close to see someone's nostril hairs .

e-k

And all I'm saying is that there are important factors aside from print size that determine someone's chosen viewing distance, and the angle of view rendered by a given lens is an important variable -- and this has been recognized by photographers for as long as there have been enlargers. Yes, compositional elements are part of it too, and they have some sort of relationship with focal length that probably varies depending on the kind of picture.

The common statement that big prints are viewed from far away is simply not based in truth, though. A wide angle landscape in which innumerable large real-world subjects (i.e. trees) are rendered way below life size will tend to be viewed much more closely than a head-and-shoulders portrait that is pronted at the same size.

I use an EOS 3.....love it. I would definitely recommend one (hope it's called the same in the US )

Have you got your shots back yet?

DrPablo wrote in post #9964141
And all I'm saying is that there are important factors aside from print size that determine someone's chosen viewing distance, and the angle of view rendered by a given lens is an important variable -- and this has been recognized by photographers for as long as there have been enlargers. Yes, compositional elements are part of it too, and they have some sort of relationship with focal length that probably varies depending on the kind of picture.

The common statement that big prints are viewed from far away is simply not based in truth, though. A wide angle landscape in which innumerable large real-world subjects (i.e. trees) are rendered way below life size will tend to be viewed much more closely than a head-and-shoulders portrait that is pronted at the same size.

I agree with you up to the comma in your first sentence. The rest we'll have to agree to disagree. The "magic" viewing distance is no better a predictor to actual viewing distance than anything else in my opinion -- well maybe a little better but not by much

In any case, this is straying somewhat from the original topic...

e-k