Possibly, but how would it look scanned to the equivalent of 116 MP, which that cloud one is on my computer, and it could have been scanned to well over 250 MP, maybe 300, it's been done before with 120 negatives. They'd make massive murals without any pixelation.Plenty of people! We all have our own preferences. I personally do loads of 35mm landscape work.
The example you posted at that resolution would have been every bit as good as it is now if it had been shot on 35mm.
I would guess about 90% of film photographers.Sorry, but who uses 35mm for landscape photography?
Yes, I'm impressed with HR-50 in 35mm and I haven't even used it with my best camera lenses yet. Little picky on the developer it like, but if you're careful it's really good. I can't wait until we get some green in Michigan so I can use my R72 filter with it.Scala 50 / HR-50 with a modern sharp lens can do it very well. Fuji slide is nice, too.
Yes, I'm impressed with HR-50 in 35mm and I haven't even used it with my best camera lenses yet. Little picky on the developer it like, but if you're careful it's really good. I can't wait until we get some green in Michigan so I can use my R72 filter with it.
Sorry, but who uses 35mm for landscape photography?
I'd love to see one of your 35mm landscapes, do you use APO Lanthar lenses?
I would guess about 90% of film photographers.
I've long been a user of Tmax 100 as well as TMY-2. Given the imposition today of 25% tariffs, when my Kodak film runs out i'll be buying Ilford Delta 100 as my choice of fine grain film.
I'd appreciate any comments/comparisons from Ilford users about Ilford Delta 100 & Kodak TMX.
I typically process in Pyrocat HD and use mostly 120 and some 35mm. The MF negatives get enlarged as large as 20x24" and the 35mm usually only to 11x14."
I surrender. I love film too much to argue.
Hey, welcome to Photrio. Stick around and keep showing your work!
I didn't expect all the dialogue that emanated from my posts.
This thread inspired me to spend the day shooting the same stuff on both T-Max 100 and Delta 100. Will develop in Rodinal this week-end.
They're both excellent films. Also consider Fuji 100 Acros II.
Yes, this is not about scanning, but I found that even my well thought of Nikon LS8000 liked a thinner negative compared to the good old enlarger with VC head.
Scala 50 / HR-50 with a modern sharp lens can do it very well. Fuji slide is nice, too.
Sorry, but who uses 35mm for landscape photography? Wouldn't no less than 4x5 be better? I used 120 for the clouds shot and I'm moving to 4x5 in the future, like right now. 120 is alright, but for sharp detail in backgrounds, I reckon a larger format is needed. Of course it depends on your depth of field, but just the same, why have a murky out of focus background due to a format that is too small for the job? Good clean bokeh is just as important as a good sharp subject.
Yes Plus X Pan is discontinued so I'll refrain from mentioning it any further. I liked the rendering of the blacks and whites and all the tones in between, there's a magic about them, and perhaps it's the fogging of the expired film that suppresses bright highlights that warranted my attention, because blown out highlights have been a thorn in my side almost forever. I need to learn how to meter like the Pros. It's also fine grained if developed in fresh diluted developer, or even the second development of a one-shot developer. So, with Delta 100, I will be using semi stand or a much diluted developer process in the future, and experiment with times, to get slightly flatter images that the scanner can handle, and then post process to suit my taste.
Greg,F4M.... I've dragged an 8x10 around, and skiied & climbed with MF....sometimes you're a very long way from your car and 35 does the trick..
(LeicaM6/Summicron 50/Tmax 100/Print on Forte Polygrade FB, BTW i've made acceptable enlargements of this negative to 16"x20"...but these days i usually stop at 11x14")
Sure, but I'll apologize first, I got carried away, I didn't expect all the dialogue that emanated from my posts. I'll keep a cool head from now on.
Thanks for the suggestion Keith. I have some in my fridge and have used both versions, but to me it's an outlier. I'm looking for a film that will be around in the long run and is easily obtainable. In Western Canada that's Ilford. I loved Neopan, but it's gone.... i'm not inclined to put effort into tweaking exposure and development with a film that could be gone tomorrow. For those reasons Acros didn't make my short list.
In looking for a substitute for TMax100, i didn't consider
-films made in USA (due to the ongoing tariff situation)
-films w known QC issues like Foma
-any films not readily available in Canada, (eg Adox)
- any rebrands, or any transparency film
- also for my purpose films i prioritized films available in a variety of sizes (35/120/sheet film)
Your list of qualifiers is well thought out. By the end of that set of requirements you’ve arrived at a very short list of options that is essentially nothing but Ilford products. That’s not a bad thing, not at all.
In fact, you’ve narrowed it down to two options: FP4 and Delta 100. Those are the only two that meet your requirements. I’ve said this before: if all of a sudden the only B&W film left on the planet was FP4, I could live with that. It’s malleable, versatile, and produces beautiful negs, and can be used for all kinds of different processes. In many ways it’s the perfect film.
But I could easily say the same of Delta 100. Some say it’s fussy to expose/develop to get ideal results, but I have not found this to be so. I’ve used Delta 100 sheet film to produce negatives for Salt and Kallitype printing and it performs as well as FP4 does. Exposed well and developed with intent, it gives shimmering high values with beautiful separation of the delicate bright tones, and holds shadow information nicely (you’ll want to determine its practically ASA for your needs, if course. (I tend to expose it at 64 ASA in most situations)
Anyway, you could easily choose either of those two and be happy with them.
Here's another photo that illustrates the answer to "who shoots landscapes w 35mm anyway?"
This is not to be flippant, and I'm sure the real-world print looks a lot different, but the digital version shown here is very problematic from a technical viewpoint. I don't feel it illustrates well what a 35mm landscape can look like. A lot is lost here in the smartphone capture.
This is not to be flippant, and I'm sure the real-world print looks a lot different, but the digital version shown here is very problematic from a technical viewpoint. I don't feel it illustrates well what a 35mm landscape can look like. A lot is lost here in the smartphone capture.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?