4X5 Tmax100 in Tmax dev

Those are really great...you're inspiring me to get my 4x5 out...just gotta find a subject...
How about some details on lens & exposure if you have it...
 
I am just scanning 15 years old 4x5 negatives, after having put the camera away because of the family.

I compare them with 35 mm negatives; they are just different even if you do not see the difference in detail - meaning resolution.

I don't know how to describe it. The pictures "would not work" in 35mm.
 
Ned Bojic said:
Scaning kills anything useful out of a negative.

A negative is enlarged. The grain is enlarged. This is the whole principle.
Once scaned, what is there left? A file resolution is worlds away from a negative's resolution. Both can't be Compared. A scan is not an enlargement, it is a picture of a negative in digital form.

I agree that a 4x5 is better then a 35mm negative, in many aspects, but both cannot be compared digitally. Especially not on web format, and especially not when scaned on a flatbed. The nature of the negatives are killed.

To compare them, one must use a loupe, and compare prints as well.
No scans, no computer screens.

The best example is the posted photo in the OP: there is absolutely no way to distinguish it: is it a 35mm neg? Digital? Medium format? 4x5? Half-frame? Cropped? Is it a color negative? Iphone shot? No one can answer this exactly. It's impossible to answer.
Click to expand...

Well gosh, thanks for all the positivity, Ned.
 
nikon_sam said:
Those are really great...you're inspiring me to get my 4x5 out...just gotta find a subject...
How about some details on lens & exposure if you have it...
Click to expand...

The lens is a Rodenstock 150mm. IIRC (because I don't do a good job of keeping all that stuff straight), these were shot at f22 and around a second or two. Pretty sure I rated the Tmax @ 80 and developed in Tmax 1+9 for 14 minutes or so.

Kenny
 
BillBingham2 said:
I love the rich feeling of a 4x5 B&W.......

Very nice, thanks for sharing.

B2
Click to expand...

Thanks, Bill, I appreciate it.

jschrader said:
I am just scanning 15 years old 4x5 negatives, after having put the camera away because of the family.

I compare them with 35 mm negatives; they are just different even if you do not see the difference in detail - meaning resolution.

I don't know how to describe it. The pictures "would not work" in 35mm.
Click to expand...

Agree, a 4X5 negative is 'different'; I find myself shooting LF almost to the exclusion of my other analog gears.
 
Ned Bojic said:
Scaning kills anything useful out of a negative.

A negative is enlarged. The grain is enlarged. This is the whole principle.
Once scaned, what is there left? A file resolution is worlds away from a negative's resolution. Both can't be Compared. A scan is not an enlargement, it is a picture of a negative in digital form.

I agree that a 4x5 is better then a 35mm negative, in many aspects, but both cannot be compared digitally. Especially not on web format, and especially not when scaned on a flatbed. The nature of the negatives are killed.

To compare them, one must use a loupe, and compare prints as well.
No scans, no computer screens.

The best example is the posted photo in the OP: there is absolutely no way to distinguish it: is it a 35mm neg? Digital? Medium format? 4x5? Half-frame? Cropped? Is it a color negative? Iphone shot? No one can answer this exactly. It's impossible to answer.
Click to expand...
This was not a polite way to make your point.

To the OP, I think they look great and even in smaller jpeg format, I can tell they aren't 35mm....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
XTOL Mishap
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
8K
Freakscene
Freakscene
skopar steve
Zorki 3M viewfinder problem
Replies
2
Views
375
skopar steve
skopar steve
M
Paper Negative Dev. In Tmax?
Replies
2
Views
1K
mh2000
M
A
Museum Watching
Replies
1
Views
173
Archiver
A
K
Canonet Scratches
Replies
5
Views
456
Mackinaw
M
Back
Top Bottom