kmack
do your job, then let go
When the day comes that I can build myself a real darkroom, and have the time to spend in it, I will be going large format, full hog, 8x10 negitives baby!
For all the Leica vs. Bessa People . . .
- Thread starter marknyc
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 37
- Views 3K
peterc
Heretic
And some Gigabit film to preserve that sharpness. 😀Frank Granovski said:
Peter
R
rich815
Guest
kmack said:
The late, great Barry Thornton had some interesting comments on that. I'll find them in his book tonight and copy you on them. They are interesting.....
P
peptonio
Guest
marknyc said:
Mark, wisely spoken ! And it begins with MF yet, you don't need LF to recognize,
how ridiculous small the performance gap is ( if there is any at all in some cases) among good 35mm lenses compared to the larger formats advantages.
So for some of those who are hunting for the best lens ever since decades it could be a healing ( or an infecting) experience just to use a Rolleiflex or better, a Mamyia 7 for half a year. Exclusively. And I bet that even if they would go back, at least partially, to 35mm, they never ever again were really interested in any brand names of 35mm cameras. They'd climbed the mountain and had the seen the promised land.
BUT: The X vs Y crap is NOT about absolute quality. If at all quality is the issue it is about the relative quality (what is the"better" product) or even worse and more frequently it is about what the BEST product is. The original sin of the amateur photogs, which amuses the pros since amateurs exist.
Tho your suggestion hits the nail on the head, as far as the FACTS are concerned,
it won't stop the x VS y arguments. If the absolute quality of the negs would be the true passion of the many amateurs, who insist of using the top of the top gear only, then they would shoot much more MF and LF too, they simply would have no other choice. !
If quality at all would play a roll ( I deny that) there weren't so many carelessly taken shots of arbitrary items out there in the web galleries, taken with $ 6000 combos but scanned so extremely sloppy and postprocessed so poorly that nobody can tell if it is a disposable camera or a 1;4/75 Zeileicanonikon
To translate it in the dog's world: X vs Y is about who s**ts the bigger heap, you know, and it must be handled as what it is, best with a combo of ironic acid and humor, but always leaned back 😀
Regards,
peppo
back alley
IMAGES
thanks for enlightening us all peppo, i'm not sure how we managed without your intense wisdom till now.
but seeing how you wish to disperse said wisdom i can see why you represent the silent MINORITY.
joe
but seeing how you wish to disperse said wisdom i can see why you represent the silent MINORITY.
joe
doubs43
Well-known
JOE!! Do I sense a bit of sarcasm in your post? Shame on you! 😉
Walker
Walker
back alley
IMAGES
doubs43 said:
you noticed eh?
i get tired of know it alls coming round and trying to tell everyone what is according to their way of seeing us poor uneducated amatoors.
i think peppo maybe needs to start his own forum and see how many people drop by for a visit.
joe
P
peptonio
Guest
back alley said:
Joe,
I have been a lurker here at RFF since a while and I did not register recently to enlighten people.
You can't imagine how unimportant it is for me how bright or dark it is in those heads I was referring to in my comment.
All I do is to say my opinion about a the x vs y nonsense in photo forums in general and about the intentions in particular of a certain sort of people which are always involved strongly in those stupid discussions .
From what reason ever you obviously did not like my comment on Marks contribution, it is amazing that you as the moderator feel the urge to dump such a load of mocking and derisive sarcasm here, which one can take easily as a quite ugly offense.Is that the friendly and peaceful style you like
so much to talk about ??
Or does the moderator have the privileg here to comment as offensive as he feels like ?
If I should have switched on unwillingly any of your lights, , sorry Joe ! Switch them off again, it was not my intention.
Peppo
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
What does 'moderator' mean?
I thought also that Back Alley was too hard on Peptonio.
I thought also that Back Alley was too hard on Peptonio.
F
former member
Guest
I gave 2 Speed-graphic 4x5 cameras away. Plus a number of lenses. I know their new owners like them and use them.
I'll stick to 35mm. I don't have a Bessa, but I do have a Prominent.
I'll stick to 35mm. I don't have a Bessa, but I do have a Prominent.
R
rich815
Guest
I do not think Peptonio was over the top by any means. It was his opinion and we should always encourage that (unless we want this place to just become a circle-jerk of vapid, fawning praise and mutual agreement? Which I sometimes wonder....I sure hope not.....I can go to Photosig for that). Back Alley's comment, IMO, was degradingly sarcastic and unnecessary, as was his further reply after that. If Peptonio was somehow directly personal or attacking someone I can see a moderator getting involved but even then with a bit more professionalism and less sarcasm. I think you were inappropriate, Back Alley.
Last edited by a moderator:
back alley
IMAGES
judging from the responses here and in my mail it would seem that i am seeing this situation very differently from how some others see it.
if i was over the top then my apologies are extended to all who took offense.
that does not, however, change how i see it.
but i will not belabour the point.
the future is before us and we will see how it unfolds.
joe
if i was over the top then my apologies are extended to all who took offense.
that does not, however, change how i see it.
but i will not belabour the point.
the future is before us and we will see how it unfolds.
joe
P
peptonio
Guest
back alley said:
Joe,
still not knowing how your seeing differs from your wording, if this is an apology and if you mean me, o.k. I will accept it.
And as far as the future is concerned you mention above, a bit more lean back would be nice, especially when it comes to any sensitive issues. I myself will try do do my very best to keep it civilized, no matter how hot the controverse will get.
Regards
Peppo
back alley
IMAGES
so we start fresh...
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Cheers Joe
peterc
Heretic
I'd have to agree with this Roland.ferider said:
If you start with a lens that can resolve 200 l/mm, you'll be lucky to get 100 l/mm on 35mm film (unless you use really slow fine-grained film, tripod etc.) assuming optimum film plane flatness and focus adjustment etc. Scanning (with most comsumer scanners) will then knock it down again. So, in the end, the 200 l/mm lens is giving you 50-60 l/mm by the time you have it ready to wwork with in your computer.
Peter
FrankS
Registered User
Roland, while 35mm lenses are capable of higher resolutions, MF and LF negs result in prints with greater sharpness, detail and tonality because the 35mm negs have to be enlargered to a greater extent. So square centimeters (of negative) beats out resolving capability of lens.
FrankS
Registered User
Now I understand your point. Yes you are correct.
Similar threads
- Article
