urban_alchemist
Well-known
I recently took a course to refresh the old darkroom skills (souping and printing).
So, I picked a photo - nice HP5+ shot with Leica MP and Summicron 50, and got to printing 8x10. Walked out of the darkroom and the teacher comes up to check my work.
"Walla!" he says, pulling it from my hands, "This is why I love medium format!"
Gotta love the Leica
So, I picked a photo - nice HP5+ shot with Leica MP and Summicron 50, and got to printing 8x10. Walked out of the darkroom and the teacher comes up to check my work.
"Walla!" he says, pulling it from my hands, "This is why I love medium format!"
Gotta love the Leica
wontonny
Well-known
hahahahaha! Then did you break him the news?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Wow. 35mm can make incredibly sharp images if done right, but I can't believe anyone would look at a 35mm image on a fairly grainy film like HP5+ and think it is medium format.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
me too! - perhaps he was used to looking at all those Holga pics!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
He didn't happen to have a labrador on a leash with him did he? :angel:
FPjohn
Well-known
Irony?
yours
FPJ
yours
FPJ
jaap
Jaap
Must be a very good teacher
urban_alchemist
Well-known
Wow... you guys are HARSH!
In his defense, I printed some 6x6 from my Hasselblad (Delta 100) that day to compare. While the Hassy had more detail, the Leica, even from 35mm, was more contrasty and seemed to have almost as much 'depth'. I was kinda shocked myself, but one was not substantially outdone by the other, even allowing for film differences...
In his defense, I printed some 6x6 from my Hasselblad (Delta 100) that day to compare. While the Hassy had more detail, the Leica, even from 35mm, was more contrasty and seemed to have almost as much 'depth'. I was kinda shocked myself, but one was not substantially outdone by the other, even allowing for film differences...
mmk60
Member
notturtle
Well-known
depends on subject. Hp5 on 35mm has nowhere near the resolution of MF D100 - the gulf is not subtle where fine detail is present. I think your results are more likely to be to do with a well exposed and developed neg than anything else.
A well done 6x7 D100 neg printed to 20x16 will show more detail in a given area than a 10x8 off 35mm HP5....in my exerience at least. Less grain too.
A well done 6x7 D100 neg printed to 20x16 will show more detail in a given area than a 10x8 off 35mm HP5....in my exerience at least. Less grain too.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Do you think it looks like a medium format print?
dnk512
Well-known
Medium format is no magic. It has more surface, so it allows for a less than perfect negative to print well at 8x10 (less magnification). A perfect 35mm negative has little to worry for up to 8". It just gets a bit tiring to always must need that perfect negative. Add improved handling and medium format is my current choice.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
Don't forget you're paying him for the course...
I only print up to 5x7 with my 35mm negs and full frame at that...
I prefer to work with the MF negs or contact print 4x5...
I only print up to 5x7 with my 35mm negs and full frame at that...
I prefer to work with the MF negs or contact print 4x5...
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
At 8x10, the difference between 35mm and medium format is not so obvious. In my experience, it was when I went to larger print sizes that the difference showed up. Think about it.... many of Galen Rowell's 'coffee table' books of incredible landscapes were done with 35mm.
mhv
Registered User
Not to diminish the value of your Leica kit, but properly exposed and processed 35mm B&W can look really good nowadays.
The current formulations of modern B&W films, even of the "traditional" persuasion such as HP5+ or Tri-X, have very smooth tonal gradations, compared to what the average darkroom joe would have done in the heydays of overdeveloped+underexposed Tri-X that was the bread and butter of all photo classes. People used to think it looked cool. Even discerning technicians today still think that Tri-X used to look better because it had harsher tones.
In 35mm, the difference is visible. If your teacher was used to see crappy tonal gradations from 35mm, he might have been fooled by a casual glance at your picture. Not having recognized the classic soot and chalk look, he might have latched onto the only other logical possibility, i.e. MF.
The current formulations of modern B&W films, even of the "traditional" persuasion such as HP5+ or Tri-X, have very smooth tonal gradations, compared to what the average darkroom joe would have done in the heydays of overdeveloped+underexposed Tri-X that was the bread and butter of all photo classes. People used to think it looked cool. Even discerning technicians today still think that Tri-X used to look better because it had harsher tones.
In 35mm, the difference is visible. If your teacher was used to see crappy tonal gradations from 35mm, he might have been fooled by a casual glance at your picture. Not having recognized the classic soot and chalk look, he might have latched onto the only other logical possibility, i.e. MF.
Last edited:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Walla???
Mon dieu!!!
Mon dieu!!!
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
To me, the diff between my Hasselblad and my Leica are visibly different even at 4x6. One is laden wit detail (Hasselblad). The other while sharp has a glow about it, exceptional bokeh, and a smooth transfer from sharpness to unsharpness (Leica).
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
Agree with you. I have 5x7 and 8x10 35mm prints, I wouldn't be able to know if done with a Leica or Hasselblad. When properly exposing with a good lens (Summicron 50 at f4, Color Skopar at f8 or so) and a good body, the 35mm detail you can get is amazing.
Of course one needs to use tripod, properly measure exposure, etc, just like one would with MF.
But then I shoot color. B+W might be a different story.
On 20x20 it's a different story, too
Roland.
Last edited: