Gast
Hello
I’ve been following these articles in specialist magazines for quite some time now, and
so I have a question here as well
I’m familiar with the following films:
Agfa Copex
Kodak ImageLink
and the Gigabit film.
Maco Ort 25
With the first three, the developer is already included in the price.
How do they perform during processing? Does anyone have any experience with them?
My interest lies in the following: I wouldn’t have to carry my heavy M-format
Kiev with me, and you get more shots on a roll during exposure.
I would shoot with an EOS 650 fitted with adapted PSIX Zeiss lenses.
Kind regards, Frank
FrankJBeckmann
Hi,
If you use capital letters in the right places, the readability of your text will improve significantly, which in turn will lead to more replies.
The Gigabit film is also an Agfa Copex. It remains to be seen what will become of the film. Unfortunately, the future of Agfa Photo is uncertain.
These very fine-grained films don’t just have advantages. Firstly, they require a great deal of light. This means you’ll rarely be able to manage without a tripod. Secondly, they need to be exposed and developed very precisely, otherwise they’ll end up with too much contrast. And then the conversion of colours to greyscale is also a matter of taste.
Adapted medium-format lenses aren’t really any fun on the EOS 650, and the lenses are nowhere near as sharp as those designed specifically for the smaller image format. So you gain nothing from the films with fine grain, but you always have to lug a tripod around with you. I don’t think the whole thing makes much sense. It would be a different story with high-quality fixed-focal-length lenses for your EOS. But even then, you can’t do without a tripod.
Bye
Frank
Gast
...if you have to use a tripod anyway because of the film’s low speed, you might as well work in medium format, as the tripod negates the main advantages of 35mm (portability, speed, and above all, shooting handheld); if you already have CZJ lenses, why not get a Pentacon Six or Kiev 60 body to go with them?
Gast
Sorry, must be the heat...
You wrote that you have a Kiev, so you can forget the second part of my reply...
But I stand by my view – films like that make little sense to me – you can only achieve results that just about match medium format, but certainly don’t surpass it, through extremely precise and laborious work whilst accepting many limitations. Displacement – sorry – format cannot be replaced by anything.
fotohuisrovo
It depends a bit on which system you’re using. With a K.B. and fixed lenses of f/1.4 or f/2.0, and Copex film at ISO 40, you can of course still manage without a tripod. The Leica M or Voigtländer Bessa are cameras that can be used without camera shake at shutter speeds of 1/15s or 1/30s.
Copex and/or Imagelink can be processed in the SPUR chemical bath without any problems, and the result looks just like small medium format. 40x50 cm is no problem at all with these.
Best regards,
Robert
Gast
Hi Frank,
Why do you need high-resolution 35mm films? Do you want to count hairs; capture skin pores, architecture or telegraph lines? If not, you don’t need extremely high resolution!
That’s meant as a bit of a joke, but it hits the nail on the head. You shouldn’t confuse ‘resolution’ with ‘sharpness’!
The films you mentioned offer hardly any advantages in 35mm practice (the high resolution is only achieved at a contrast of 1:1000 anyway), because as already described: high contrast, steep gradient, long exposure times (which rules out ‘fast-moving subjects’ – so where’s the advantage of a 35mm camera then?), limited and/or unfamiliar tonal range/grey values, etc., etc.
And another important point: if you work in black and white, you surely value the tonal range of your prints; however, you shouldn’t enlarge a negative more than five times (35mm approx. 13 x 18 cm), because if it gets any larger, you’ll also lose the tonal quality, have to work with steeper gradients to retain the blacks, etc., etc.
It’s a shame that you want to give up the advantage of medium format for the sake of convenience (unless you’re an action or sports reporter). For example, a 6 x 6 negative can already be enlarged to 30 x 30 cm (without exceeding the loss threshold), a 6 x 7 to 30 x 35 cm, and a 6 x 9 easily to 30 x 45 cm! And you retain a very, very good tonal range!
Incidentally, fewer shots per roll often mean more – because you look more closely at composition and selection, but also because this allows the film’s contrast to be matched to the scene’s or subject’s contrast. In other words, I’m more likely to take 8 shots (e.g. 6x9 format) of a subject or scene under the same lighting conditions, but hardly 36, am I?
In other words, I can develop the film in a way that suits the subject matter and thus obtain the ‘better’ negatives.
On a personal note: years ago, I sold all my 35mm cameras except for an old Voigtländer Prominent (an old keepsake which I still move around now and then to prevent it from rusting) and now work exclusively with a twin-lens Seagull 6x6; Fuji GW 690 III (6x9); Pentax 6x7 (interchangeable lenses and for faster shooting), as well as a Canham DLC 45 (4 x 5 inch). The quality of the images is far superior to that of a 35mm shot. You can see it in the tonal range, resolution, etc. of the negatives and prints! And by the way, I’ve hardly changed my choice of subjects; you just have to work differently and ‘think ahead’.
Incidentally, with the Maco PO 100 c (max. 270 lines resolution at appropriate contrast) or the Rollei R 3, specially exposed at 25 or 50 ASA and developed in Cube SX, there are also ‘faster’ and more versatile films that offer very good resolution whilst still producing beautiful grey tones, etc. Not to mention the Efkes 25 and 50 in the appropriate developer.
But it’s best if you experience this for yourself. Perhaps you’re the typical 35mm photographer (please don’t take this the wrong way, it’s not meant as a put-down), because there really is a difference between thinking and seeing in medium/large format and in 35mm format.
Have fun and good luck
Lothar
mau
Firstly, regardless of the system used, shake-free shots without a tripod are only possible under ideal lighting conditions.
The films mentioned certainly have their place when you need large prints from 35mm negatives.
My favourite for such cases is the (currently unavailable) Agfapan 25. I prefer this film because, in addition to being suitable for large enlargements, it offers a grey-scale reproduction that is hard to beat.
If I have to choose between Technikelpan and Gigabit film, I prefer the Gigabit.
The Gigabit doesn’t render the grey tones quite as beautifully as the APX25, but it can be enlarged to an even larger size. (50x60 crop enlargement)
The Maco Orth 25 cannot replace the Agfa APX 25; it is not panchromatic, but it is certainly an alternative to it.
Zeiss lenses (for Hasselblad) are absolutely top-class; as medium-format lenses, they probably deliver at least the same performance as Canon optics. In my opinion, adapting them is only worthwhile if no high-quality lenses (fixed focal lengths) are available for the Canon.
Using these films only makes sense with top-of-the-range lenses; Leitz and Contax are out of the question here, as their optics have very tight manufacturing tolerances and are rigorously screened out during quality control.
I have few reservations about Nikon and Canon prime lenses either, but the actually quite good zooms from third-party manufacturers probably can’t keep up here.
Gast
Hi Frank,
I see you’ve got the Canon and a Kiev, as well as the Zeiss lenses that go with the Kiev (what else would you have the Zeiss ones for?!?).
If the Kiev isn’t causing any trouble elsewhere (leaking, rattling, Beli’s got the munchies or something), I’d bet a crate of beer that you’ll sort it out at home after 3–5 rolls and sheepishly take the Kiev back with you.
The fact that I prefer short rolls (8–12 shots) is a matter of taste.
The Canon with the thick lenses offers hardly (if any) more convenience than the original setup with the Kiev.
The difference in weight of the body is barely noticeable when out and about, given the amount of glass, the tripod and whatever else is missing.
The limitations regarding light/tripod/depth of field/shake/grain are more or less the same anyway (MF less DOF > stopping down > more sensitive film > grain), but you’re not stuck with some hocus-pocus concoction; instead, you’re free to experiment however you like.
I drink Astra. Got a problem with that?
Regards
Martin
Gast
P.S.: And if you’re feeling up to it, the Hexenküche is also available on MF.
By the way, if you’ve already got the list as above, the Effke 25 in A49 is ‘standard stuff’, but you might like it. It’s certainly very nice and soft (how shall I put it, people always ask about the light you need for that creamy portrait look with the 35mm, and the answer is always ‘at least 4x5’).
Gast
First of all, thanks for your assessment
of me. When I go hiking – for a whole day, that is – I always take all my kit with me: a rucksack, the heavy Kiev or, better still, the Pentax 3, lenses, extension rings, filters, film, and on top of that a heavy tripod. That’s about 15 kg.
I’ve been exposed to silver film for quite some time now, and for the last three years I’ve really been going for it. Many of those I thought I could learn something from, and those who talked the biggest game, have unfortunately failed miserably.
Applying the zone system in medium format isn’t my thing; I’ll stick
to contrast measurement using a 1° spot.
Right then, let’s see what happens.
Kind regards
FrankJBeckmann
Hi,
Could you please rephrase that so it makes sense?
I really don't understand what you're trying to say.
Bye
Frank
CPD
Hi Frank,
? – I have to admit, quite honestly, that I don’t quite understand your last post.
The main issues with films like Gigabit, Technical Pan, etc. have already been mentioned.
In my opinion, there is another problem to add to the mix: I have used Technical Pan a few times. With higher or high contrasts, it very quickly gets out of hand even with adjusted exposure (i.e. adding exposure) and development (shortening the development time); it can easily happen that the film ends up only performing at 6 ASA. Taking photographs, even of static subjects, then actually ceases to be any fun for me; Mr Schwarzschildt suddenly insists on his rights, leaves rustle in the wind, and so on.
If I were you, I’d limit myself a bit more! But not in terms of format, rather in terms of the amount of kit. Especially in medium format, you can get relatively far with a wide-angle and a moderate telephoto; the standard lens can then stay at home. A mirror lock-up certainly brings more benefits than such a film; indeed, without a mirror lock-up, you can forget about such a film anyway – even with a Hasselblad!
Incidentally, I’m going to try a film of this ‘type’ again soon myself: but when shooting, I’ll pay very close attention to the prevailing contrasts – otherwise it simply becomes too fiddly and too green. I can’t be bothered with test series (cf. test shots as with the zone system) – but – you can’t avoid testing altogether.
What exactly do you actually want to photograph that requires such a high resolution? Or to what formats do you want to enlarge your pictures?
Regards, CP
Gast
It depends a bit on which system you’re using. With a K.B. and fixed lenses of f/1.4 or f/2.0, and Copex at ISO 40, you can of course still manage without a tripod. The Leica M or Voigtländer Bessa are cameras that can be used without camera shake at 1/15s or 1/30s.
Copex and/or Imagelink can be processed in SPUR Chemie without any problems, and the result looks just like small medium format. 40x50 cm is no problem at all with these.
Best regards,
Robert
>> The Leica M or Voigtländer Bessa are the cameras that can be used without camera shake at 1/15s or 1/30s.
Is that a joke?
FrankJBeckmann
No, that’s certainly no joke. With viewfinder cameras, there’s no mirror slap.
Gast
No, that’s certainly no joke. With viewfinder cameras, there’s no mirror shock.
Frank
Oh, and does the person act as a tripod or something? I’m not denying that you can still get sufficiently sharp shots at 1/15, but to make the most of high-resolution film, a completely shake-free release is essential; otherwise, you might as well use 400-speed film and, thanks to the shorter shutter speed, you’re guaranteed shots that have the same level of sharpness, if not higher. Anything else is just old wives’ tales.
FrankJBeckmann
Hi there,
Let me spell it out again, so even the trolls can’t get a grip on it: any shot taken handheld or using an undersized tripod will be slightly out of focus due to camera shake. In such cases, the high resolution of these special films is of no use. That’s why I wrote right at the start that a tripod is absolutely essential when using such films, or you might as well just use normal film. If you look at photos from a distance typical for the size of the print, shots taken with an SLR camera with a moving mirror appear out of focus even at shorter shutter speeds than those taken with rangefinder cameras or SLR cameras with a fixed mirror. And if we’re being that precise, it’s also worth mentioning that there is no depth of field.
Bye
Frank
CPD
Hi Frank,
What do you mean by saying there’s no depth of field? The old debate about depth of field versus depth of focus? I’ve always found that rather pointless and academic. Or do you mean that the optimal aperture is so wide (stopped down by two or three stops at most) that you can’t achieve sufficient depth of field? I’d agree with that argument.
It makes no sense to use such films without the appropriate equipment (a decent tripod, a rangefinder camera or mirror lock-up, or even doing away with retrofocus lenses). I would even go so far as to say that you can achieve better quality shooting freehand with a higher-sensitivity film than with such a high-resolution film with mirror shock and/or a wobbly tripod; even incorrect use of the cable release can lead to camera shake, not to mention the wind. The question of image quality is also a matter in its own right: none of the technical films I’m familiar with exactly shine in terms of outstanding grey-scale reproduction.
Regards, CP
FrankJBeckmann
Hi,
I reckon that only points lying exactly on the object plane are actually displayed as points on the image plane. All other points are displayed as circles of varying sizes. But I only added that comment because someone was harping on about statements taken out of context.
Bye
Frank
Gast
Hi,
I reckon that only points lying exactly in the object plane are actually reproduced as points in the image plane. All other points are reproduced as circles of varying sizes. But I only added that comment because someone was harping on about statements taken out of context.
Bye
Frank
The context was there, in the very next sentence, you troll.
"It depends a bit on which system you’re using. K.B. and fixed lenses of f/1.4 or f/2.0 and Copex at ISO 40 can of course still work without a tripod. Leica M or Voigtländer Bessa are the cameras that can be used without camera shake at 1/15s or 1/30s.
Copex and/or Imagelink can be processed in the SPUR lab without any problems, and the result looks like small medium format. 40x50 cm is no problem at all with them."
Gast
Goodness me,
Hello Guest,
What does describing an optical phenomenon have to do with using a Leica M4 or Bessa with fixed focal lengths?
Assuming equivalent lenses, the circle of confusion at the set distance is generally – though not necessarily always – the same, regardless of whether you’re using an SLR, a rangefinder, a twin-lens or a view camera. – And that goes for water, land and air!
The point is that non-retrofocus lenses have a higher resolution (as a rule, at least), and with non-SLRs or pre-release mirror systems, there is no vibration caused by the mirror, etc.
But that really has absolutely nothing to do with Frank’s correct remark.
Troll yourself!
Regards, CP
