35 MM or Medium

[kieranmullen]

I need to get prints 36"x48" a file that is 10,800 by 14,400 pixels in size.

Would 35 MM slide film be able to produce such results or should I go to a medium format film? (I dont have a medium format camera)

Thank you

KM

[Michael Fanelli]

I need to get prints 36"x48" a file that is 10,800 by 14,400 pixels in size.

Would 35 MM slide film be able to produce such results or should I go to a medium format film? (I dont have a medium format camera)

Thank you

Medium format, especially 6x7, blows away 35mm. Although lots of people blow up that tiny sliver of 35mm film to large sizes, the quality is terrible regardless of what you might be told. You can rent MF equipment to try it out for yourself. If you choose to buy, prices for used equipment are cheap these days.

[kieranmullen]

Medium format, especially 6x7, blows away 35mm. Although lots of people blow up that tiny sliver of 35mm film to large sizes, the quality is terrible regardless of what you might be told. You can rent MF equipment to try it out for yourself. If you choose to buy, prices for used equipment are cheap these days.

I know
NOTHING! about medium format. Is shooting pretty much the same? Film and Dev costs? How about equpment costs.

What is the largest size you can expect from slide film and 35 mm?

If putting this is the goal (which it is) I woul think slide film then using a slide film scanner woul dbe the best bet.

Thanks

KM

[Speed]

Medium format, especially 6x7, blows away 35mm. Although lots of people blow up that tiny sliver of 35mm film to large sizes, the quality is terrible regardless of what you might be told. You can rent MF equipment to try it out for yourself. If you choose to buy, prices for used equipment are cheap these days.

I've always heard that 16X20 is as large as you want to go with 35mm.

With the size you are going for, medium format is definitely the way to go! And with prints the size you are talking about, you would definitely want to go with 6X7 if at all possible.

Exposure is the same as with 35mm, digital, whatever. Lens coverage will be quite different though. Do some research, and if you can, talk with some people who shoot medium format. They can get you started in the right direction.

[another view]

There is no absolute maximum enlargement size for any format, it's just a matter of what's acceptable to you. A print that big would be viewed from several steps back but if you looked at it form only a couple of inches away (the way photographers do ;) ) it will probably lose a little detail with even medium format. That said, I can't imagine blowing up 35mm that big but I remember hearing about one that Galen Rowell did (extremely sharp lens, braced camera on ground, etc) that was about 40x50. Usually a print that big would be done on a 4x5 large format camera.

Another thing I notice is the pixel dimension, that works out to 300dpi. IMO you don't need that resolution, 240 will be fine (what I use on big prints) and 180 might even be OK.

Medium format cameras are usually all manual so you'll need to use a light meter with them. Equipment costs are down to nothing because a lot of people are using digital capture instead of MF now (esp. wedding photogs). A Mamiya RB system wouldn't be too expensive now compared to a couple of years ago. It's a different world with a camera like that or Hasselblad, Bronica - you need a body, viewfinder, filmback and lens to make a complete camera. Processing is more per frame (120 film = 10 exp of 6x7) but because the process is slower you might not shoot as many frames.

[kieranmullen]

Wht is inexpensive for a Medium format system ? I am seeing $1500 or so for a medium format camera.... http://drlinky.com/?L=570CD

It is still a couple of hundred dollrs to rent as well. Can anyone point me to some medium format camera buyers guides, reiews, prices and how to's?

Thanks!

KM

[another view]

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/cameras.html This one will keep you busy for awhile!

Look at some of the manual/mechanical systems - a Mamiya RB67 Pro S would be a good choice and probably about half of the price of the 645AF you linked (they may or may not get it, too). I considered buying one when I got rid of my Bronica SQ-A (6x6) but wouldn't use it enough to justify it. I know you can get an SQ-A complete camera for under $500 but keep in mind that it's square format so you'll crop it unless the print is square. Advantage is that you don't worry about vertical or horizontal when shooting, disadvantage is that you'll probably crop to about the size of a 645, and 6x7 is so much bigger. Even some of the old TLR's (twin lens reflex) will give you great results on the cheap, but they're going to be 6x6 as well.

[racingpinarello]

Wht is inexpensive for a Medium format system ? I am seeing $1500 or so for a medium format camera.... http://drlinky.com/?L=570CD

It is still a couple of hundred dollrs to rent as well. Can anyone point me to some medium format camera buyers guides, reiews, prices and how to's?

Thanks!

KM

The camera body is nothing as compared to the lenses. While $1500 may get you a camera, wait until you buy a lens. On my Contax, a 35mm lens was well over a $1000, just for a lens.

If you want an inexpensive but quality system, get an used RB67. I have the RZ67ii and the Mamiya 7ii, and simply enjoy shooting medium format. The quality is much better than 35mm, and worth the cost if you are doing fine art or large prints. The RB67 is a great manual system, at an affordable price.

35mm slides, if high res scanned or drummed scanned will provide very good prints much larger than 16x20. Calypso does it all of the time, and they look great. Real experience...real results.

What are you printing that large anyways?

Loren

[kieranmullen]

Thnks for the info. Cheapest ytem is a manual eh? I guess I will not epect the same features as my Can elan 7NE :-)

It is for art reproductions.


Thanks all!

KM

[Michael Fanelli]

I've always heard that 16X20 is as large as you want to go with 35mm.

You'll never get good 16x20s from 35mm. Those 16x20s and even 11x14s was the reason I switched to 6x7 long ago.

Large 35mm prints might pass for good if left alone. But after a visit to a gallery with Galen's 35mm prints next to those shot by others using MF and LF illustrated how bad the 35mm quality was. Great composition but 35mm just didn't cut it.

In photography, size matters a lot.
.

[Dzerzhinski46]

I would echo much of what has already been said. MF is a wonderful medium to work with ;) . The prints are fantastic, and the negatives are about three times the size of 35mm. And even with my manual, cheapy Seagull I have been quite impressed with the pictures. Even the cheap MF cameras can give impressive results.

As for manual cameras, this is not a bad thing. Manual non meter operation is actually quite fun and easy (if you follow a few simple rules !). Look up the "Sunny 16 Rule". That is the rule I use for my daylight exposures. If you look at the photos in my gallery, you can see the results of using this rule. I leave you to judge.

Good hunting,

Dzerzhinski

[another view]

For art reproductions, you would probably get the best results using a handheld incident light meter (like a Sekonic L358). This way you would shoot manually and wouldn't even use an in-camera light meter. I'd still stick with the bigger medium format sizes. 6x7 is pretty common, and Fuji used to make 6x9 fixed lens rangefinders (aka Texas Leica).