Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
The negative size of 35mm x vs medium format ( 6 x 6 cm )
or ( 6 x 7 cm ) alone is a disadvantage. When you have
a good size enlargements made 11 x 14 or 16 x 20 size,
the quality of the print will not be grain free. If you have
enlarged a 35mm negative and enlarged it to the above sizes,
the grain will be noticeable. The professional films that are
available in 120 and 220 sizes are basically the same as in
35mm with a few exceptions. When judging color slides
side by side , the larger format one always look sharper.
Just lay on any lightbox 35mm, 6x6 cm, 6x7cm, 4x5 inch,
color slides and compare all of them with a loupe.
The larger slides will appear sharper. If you want crisper,
sharper,
larger images and do not care about the added bulk and
slowness
of medium format go for the Hasselblad system.
I have always been using 35mm and medium format cameras
on tripods, with mirrors prereleased ( locked up ) and
using fine grain films asa 50 to 100 in speed. This is to
minimize
vibration and to get the most out of lens and film
combination.
You can try to hand hold both types of cameras. The best way
is
run your own personal testing and see what works out for
your subject matter and method of photography.
In the old days Kodak used to market Panatomic X B&W film,
ASA 32. I have used it in 35mm cameras and developed it
with Microdol X developer.
I found out that it was the best combination for my style of
photography, now I use Ilford Pan F plus ISO 50 film.
Opions are mine and not of my employer.
Andrew Churak
NO ARCHIVE
>I'd be interested in how you feel about 16X20 prints from
Leica versus
>Hblad, all films etc being equal. Also, what films would tend
to minimize
>the grain and resolution differences between the two systems.