The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-04-2000, 08:04 PM
RavingMad RavingMad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
I recently went to the photo shop to get a 35mm picture enlarged for a friend who wanted to buy it; he already had an 8x10 inch frame handy, so that's the enlargement size I requested. I knew the picture I was blowing up filled the frame and when I got the enlarged shot back, I saw it was obviously missing a significant portion of the picture.

"What's this?" I ask. "You chopped off part of the picture." The girl behind the counter looked at my blankly. "Try again and please do it right - you know, I wanted the entire picture enlarged!" So I give it back to them for another try. The next time I get the enlargement, the whole picture is there all right, but it's an 8x12 inch picture!

At a loss to explain this, the clueless counter jockey brings in her manager who clarifies why everything was screwy. I checked his figures when I got home, and sure enough, he's right: It's impossible to get an 8x10 inch blowup that matches the negative I gave them.

A 35mm film negative measures 2.4x3.6 cm, giving it a 2x3 aspect ratio. Standard size prints of 4x6 inches conform to this 2x3 ratio, so the prints you get match the negatives you see in the sleeves. So far, so good.

But no standard enlargements can match the negative. The 'normal' sizes of 4x5 in, 8x10 in, and 16x20 inch enlargements all have a 4x5 aspect ratio, effectively lopping off a 1/6 of your picture. So the first enlargement I got was blown up to an 8x12 and then cropped down to an 8x10. If I want the entire subject in the picture with nothing cropped (which I do), I'm going to have to buy a custom sized frame to fit my 8x12 inch photo. Arrrgggh!

So - and here's the question - why??? Why do standard size enlargements not preserve the 2x3 ratio of the original film?

And finally, on related note, what the heck does 35mm denote? I always understood it to be the diagonal measurement of the film. However, in my quest to grok film sizes and aspect ratios, I found that's not the case - not by a long shot. Apply a little Pythagorian magic to the 2.4x3.6 cm measurement of the film and you find that the diagonal should be 4.326661530557 cm across, which I also corroborated with my ruler (at least to the 4.3 part). That's 43mm film, not 35!

So what is 35mm measuring?
__________________
~ Complacency is far more dangerous than outrage ~
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 10-04-2000, 08:18 PM
Gunslinger Gunslinger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by STARK
Apply a little Pythagorian magic to the 2.4x3.6 cm measurement of the film and you find that the diagonal should be 4.326661530557 cm across, which I also corroborated with my ruler (at least to the 4.3 part). That's 43mm film, not 35!

So what is 35mm measuring?
Skip the dead Greek guy--this ain't a TV. 35mm=3.5cm=width of the film, which for some reason you have as 3.6--perhaps a faulty rounding-off somewhere.
__________________
and then they made me their chief.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-04-2000, 11:42 PM
RavingMad RavingMad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
No, that's not it...

I considered that too and measured twice just to make sure. The film definitely measures 3.6 cm in width. It's not just close -- it's exact. Measure some yourself if you'd like.
__________________
~ Complacency is far more dangerous than outrage ~
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-04-2000, 11:48 PM
yabob yabob is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,216
STARK was measuring the image size. The 35 mm refers to the width of the entire film, including the perforations. Originally, 35 mm still cameras were made to use already existing 35 mm movie film.

Standard print sizes were probably established when a lot of competing camera formats were still in popular use, producing negatives in a variety of aspect ratios. They probably stay that size because that's the size picture frames are manufactured in.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-04-2000, 11:53 PM
sailor sailor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
The width of the film is 35mm. The size of the image 24 x 36 mm so the ratio is 1:1.5

To conserve the entire picture you need to conserve that ratio
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-04-2000, 11:57 PM
Triskadecamus Triskadecamus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
The entire width of the film is 3.6cm with .05 overlap for film guides, on the edge. The image is 3.5cm.

Folks with their own dark room equipment will do custom enlargements for you where you can actually talk with the person who is going to make the print. They can plan a good crop position to get you what you need. Most pictures need cropping anyway, and good photo houses will let you select from sample positioning templates for the best cropping fit.

Standard frame sizes are relics of pre-photographic times, as are standard matting materials. Canvas is available on stretched frames of those sizes, and the frames fit around those. Photography came at the framing industry late, and was easily able to conform after the fact of film size. Now days, computer printing is reaching the level of fidelity that makes framing more than just occasional. Turns out printed stuff is yet another non standard size, and you have to cut your own mats, or make your own frames, or both. Bummer.

Tris
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-05-2000, 12:01 AM
JimOfAllTrades JimOfAllTrades is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
The image is 36mm x 24mm, but the film (measured edge to edge) is very close to 35mm (a little over 5mm on each side of the 24mm wide image on each of the film for sprocket holes and fudge space).

Ugly
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-05-2000, 05:11 AM
ticker ticker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Film has historicaly come in all sorts of sizes. For most of photograpy's history most film came in single sheets usually in 10x8" or more recently 5x4" which is still very much in use today for high quality commercial work. Traditional paper sizes were designed to work well with these formats.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-05-2000, 10:23 AM
stuyguy stuyguy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
I have a very good friend in the one-hour photo processing biz, so I have a litte exposure (get it?) to this subject. I can't answer everything, but I can at least address some aspects of your Q's.

Mini-lab photo processing machines (which is what all the non-custom places use) use print paper that comes on big rolls -- like toilet paper. Naturally, the rolls come in various fixed widths (and, several hundred feet in length).

Now, say your drug store's machine is set up to use 5" wide rolls of print paper. Well, that limits one of your dimensions right there. (That is, either the H or W must be 5".) Then, because they don't want to offer oddball sized prints, they use a second dimension that fits the image to the next smallest 1/2 inch.

So, a machine that uses 5" wide rolls can make, say, (I'm making these dimensions up...) 5 x 7 prints, and 4 x 5 prints. Because the ratio is not identical, they're bound to lose some of the image at the edges.

Stark, does this help answer why it was so hard to get a full image from your local processor? If not, I'll ask my buddy for more insights.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-05-2000, 10:48 AM
sailor sailor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
>> The entire width of the film is 3.6cm with .05 overlap for film guides, on the edge. The image is 3.5cm.

WTF??!! Why do people make up stuff and post it here? Please measure a piece of 35 mm film. It is called 35 mm because it measures 35 mm. If you measure it and it comes to 36 mm your measuring device is off (what are you using?)
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-05-2000, 11:21 AM
yabob yabob is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,216
Maybe his film was made by the same people who used to make Benson & Hedges cigarettes.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-05-2000, 11:42 AM
sailor sailor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Or maybe he is measuring with his dick and it waxes and wanes depending with what's in the picture :-)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-05-2000, 12:18 PM
ticker ticker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
See film dimensions here
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-05-2000, 12:49 PM
yabob yabob is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,216
To that list, you can add the following formats which had significant popularity at one time:

35mm half frame - 18 x 24 mm image.
126 instamatic - square.
110 instamatic - 12 x 17
127 roll film - 4 cm wide roll film.

The instamatics were very popular snapshot cameras in their day, and a lot of prints were processed in those formats. The popular Kodak brownies which preceded the instamatics took square negatives on 127. Medium format also includes a 6x9 ratio, and there were several 16mm formats. For a while, Kodak also pushed the disk film camera, which IIRC, was a 4 x 5 aspect ratio.

If you dig up the history, when Kodak introduced roll film, they changed sizes and shapes of negatives with practically every model.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-05-2000, 01:51 PM
Triskadecamus Triskadecamus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Quote:
Originally posted by sailor
WTF??!! Why do people make up stuff and post it here?
Because I was posting in my sleep?

The film is 35mm wide, the film guides take up a portion mostly along one side (about 9mm total), and the image is 36 cm long. The film is named for the width of the film, not the length of the image.

Really sorry, but believe it or not, at the time, I thought that was what my original post said!!

Duh.

Tris
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-05-2000, 02:58 PM
JimOfAllTrades JimOfAllTrades is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
the film guides take up a portion mostly along one side (about 9mm total),
Not on any of the film I have lying around (which is probably 300 to 400 rolls of 35mm film, both negs and chromes).

The image is centered on the film stock, with equal size areas down both sides (a little over 5mm each) for sprocket holes and a little fudge-factor space.

Perhaps this is true of 35mm movie film stock? I haven't seen any in years and don't recall, although my memory is that movie film stock is also physically symmetrical, but the image is offset to allow for the optical soundtrack. Although that memory goes back years, and I could be confusing 16mm with 35. Or I could just be up in the night.

Anyway, standard 35mm film for still cameras is symmetrical, and the image is centered between two sets of sprocket holes on every camera Iíve used. This includes a couple of dozen different pro/am 35mm SLRs, a few rangefinders, 4 or 5 point & shoots, and even a 35mm roll film back Iíve got for an old medium format 4x5 Speed Graphic.

Ugly
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-05-2000, 03:44 PM
sailor sailor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Triska, just you wait until I find that wet noodle
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-05-2000, 05:09 PM
yabob yabob is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,216
Quote:
Perhaps this is true of 35mm movie film stock? I haven't seen any in years and don't recall, although my memory is that movie film stock is also physically symmetrical, but the image is offset to allow for the optical soundtrack. Although that memory goes back years, and I could be confusing 16mm with 35. Or I could just be up in the night.
As I said, 35mm still cameras were originally designed to use 35mm movie stock. But this was in the early 1920's a few years before talkies came in. Whether modifications affecting sprocket placement happened in the last 8 decades, I don't know.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-06-2000, 12:21 AM
RavingMad RavingMad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
let's see if I can clarify things:

First of all, when I said I measured the film to be 24x36 mm, I was not being entirely clear. I was, in fact, entirely wrong; I measured the image on the film at 24x36 mm. The width of the entire celluloid strip, from sprocketed edge to sprocketed edge is indeed 35 mm, as yabob, sailor, and RJKUgly all said and the site ticker linked to corroborates.

So I now know from whence the designation 35mm comes. It's a measurement of the film's physical width and has nothing whatsoever to do with the image size. Of course. Well, that was easy enough.

But what isn't so easy is the answer to my question about standard enlargement sizes and standard frame sizes.

Enlargements first: Why does MotoPhoto list an 8x10 enlargement as a standard size increase? If they were catering to professionals who took large-format 4x5 pictures, it would make perfect sense. But I imagine MotoPhoto handles amateur photogs almost exclusively, and amateurs shoot almost exclusively in 35mm, a 2x3 format. Offering as standard an enlargement that alters the aspect ratio of the original picture makes no sense - unless of course they do so in order to create a finished picture that will fit in a standard sized frame. This, I imagine, is the case.

If true, the blame gets shifted to the frame makers: Why then are standard-sized mass-produced frames offered in a 4x5 format (like 8x10 and 16x20)? Again, if the frame manufacturers were catering to professionals, this would make sense, but again, I imagine most people who buy an off-the-shelf ready-made frame are decidedly not professionals.

I realize that not every frame made is destined to hold an enlarged 35mm photograph, so there's no cause to make them all in a 2x3 format, but it seems reasonable to assume that those sold to cookie-cutter photo shops like MotoPhoto will. Why not manufacture such frames to conform to the aspect ratio of the pictures they will almost certainly hold?

Triskadecamus suggests that "standard frame sizes are relics of pre-photographic times," but surely some frame maker has by now figured out that 35mm cameras are pretty popular. Why not make a frame that caters to that popularity?
__________________
~ Complacency is far more dangerous than outrage ~
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-06-2000, 01:51 AM
JimOfAllTrades JimOfAllTrades is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Triskadecamus suggests that "standard frame sizes are relics of pre-photographic times," but surely some frame maker has by now figured out that 35mm cameras are pretty popular. Why not make a frame that caters to that popularity?
Besides just plain old resistance to change, I can WAG a couple of reasons.

1) The viewfinder in virtually all 35mm cameras show less of the scene than actually appears on the film.

Years ago, some SLR cameras had (or at least approached) a 100% view finder, but these days 90% is about it, and some cameras only get high 80s (I doing these percentages from memory, so I may off a bit, but not by more than a couple of percentage points, I think).

Non-SLRs (where you view the scene through a separate set of optics than the lens used to take the actual picture) are usually even worse. Since they canít (by definition) show exactly what the film will ďseeĒ, they have to approximate. The camera manufacturers want to head off people complaining that they when they took that last picture of their now deceased father, Dadís head was clearly in the viewfinder, but itís cut off in the picture (although you canít avoid this problem completely, especially when shooting very close to the subject. Parallax error inherent in separate off-axis shooting and viewing optics make sure of this). So they err on the side of safety and make the viewfinders (or the alignment marks in the viewfinder) show a little less than the best guess of what will actually hit the film.

What does this have to do with a standard enlargement sizes? Because of the inaccuracies in most viewfinders, printing a little less than what is on the film may actually get you a picture that is closer to what you saw in the viewfinder than printing a full frame. Not a great reason, but it may contribute to the thinking that there is little need to change the long-standardized sizes.

2) Most amateur photographers drastically overshoot the scene (meaning that the main subject is a small bit in the center of the picture). The wide angle and short zooms on virtually all inexpensive camera are partly responsible for this.

But this is caused more by the fact that that very few people realize the difference between what they see and what the camera sees. The human brain does enormous ďimage processingĒ on the fly. Part of that processing is to ignore parts of a scene that arenít interesting, and focus on those that are. So when they see Aunt Patty making those great tennis shots, they donít understand why the pictures show a tiny little figure surrounded by the tennis court, the stands, the parking lot, 20 degrees of sky, and their own feet.

The slight extra enlargement and cropping of these pictures not only doesnít hurt, but probably helps slightly.

Again, this isnít a great reason, but (again) probably contributes to the ďif it ainít broke, donít fix itĒ attitude.

When I shoot, I try to ďovershootĒ a little, knowing I can crop in the darkroom. This takes care of the problem most of the time. When framing tightly, I allow a little extra on the long axis, keeping that 1.5 to 1 ratio in mind. And where artistic considerations simply donít allow for a standard aspect ratio, then you get a custom matte and/or frame. As a bonus, the custom sizes frequently make your shots stand out from the crowd anyway, so itís not all bad.

Well, that turned into a much longer post than I thought, so Iíll bail now, while a couple of you may still be awake.

Ugly
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-07-2000, 11:10 AM
yabob yabob is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,216
Quote:
2) Most amateur photographers drastically overshoot the scene (meaning that the main subject is a small bit in the center of the picture). The wide angle and short zooms on virtually all inexpensive camera are partly responsible for this.

But this is caused more by the fact that that very few people realize the difference between what they see and
what the camera sees. The human brain does enormous ďimage processingĒ on the fly. Part of that processing is to ignore parts of a scene that arenít interesting, and focus on those that are. So when they see Aunt Patty making those great tennis shots, they donít understand why the pictures show a tiny little figure surrounded by the tennis court, the stands, the parking lot, 20 degrees of sky, and their own feet.
Hijacking the thread here, but this made me curious.

How does using the LCD on a digital camera affect the way the average person composes things? Does standing back and peering at a little screen make people less likely to overshoot since the LCD doesn't fill their field of vision like the scene in a viewfinder? It would seem that one benefit of using the LCD is that you are forced to see the scene more like it is already a photograph - a little rectangular area with boundaries. If there's an analogy to older technology, I would guess it might compare to the way people used the old waist level viewfinders. Those were generally on very bulky cameras, though. The digital cam allows this method of viewing on very compact cameras, and people seem to prefer it, unless they're in bright enough sunlight to wash out the LCD screen and make it hard to see (at the current stage of the technology, I wouldn't buy a digital cam with only an LCD).

BTW, digital seems to be settling on a 3 x 4 aspect ratio, though current models include 2 x 3 and 4 x 5 ratios, and some allow you to switch it.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-07-2000, 08:48 PM
sailor sailor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Some years ago I used to work for Kodak maintaining printers (the machine that projects the negative on to the final print paper). Now, I cannot see any reason why the aspect ratio cannot be maintained. In *every* case the paper does not start out as a cut sheet but as a roll in which only the width is fixed. The machine is programmed to advance the paper by a given amount which coincides with the part that was exposed. It punches a tiny hole right between the two pictures so later the cutter knows where to cut.

The only reason I can think would be that somehow that specific machine has some physical limitation that would not allow it to go beyond a certain dimension.

A print will never show the total 100% integral entirety of the negative (how's that for redundancy?) for the simple reason that you need a certain tolerance. If you want to make absolutely certain that you get everything, then in some cases you'd get a strip from outside the exposed frame.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-07-2000, 10:00 PM
JimOfAllTrades JimOfAllTrades is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
How does using the LCD on a digital camera affect the way the average person composes things? Does standing back and peering at a little screen make people less likely to overshoot since the LCD doesn't fill their field of vision like the scene in a viewfinder? It would seem that one benefit of using the LCD is that you are forced to see the scene more like it is already a photograph - a little rectangular area with boundaries.
I donít have any real data one way or the other, but I do know my wife is doing a better framing job with our digital camera (Nikon CoolPix 950, which has both an optical viewfinder and a small LCD screen) than she did with either her 35mm or APS cameras, both of which have only optical viewfinders.

I think she uses the LCD screen mostly, which might explain it. But also, she has been shooting a lot more in the last couple of years (mostly gravestones as part of a genealogy project she is involved in) and the extra practice may be the big reason.

Still, it wouldnít surprise me if what you say is true. Certainly I get more of a feeling of looking at a picture when looking at the LCD display than when I look through the viewfinder.

I still purposely overshoot a little when using the digital camera, though. Cropping digitally (using something like Photoshop) is even easier than in the darkroom. As long as you shoot in a high enough resolution, you can crop and enlarge even 50% to 100% and still get output with high enough resolution for many things.


Quote:
If there's an analogy to older technology, I would guess it might compare to the way people used the old waist level viewfinders. Those were generally on very bulky cameras, though.
I've got an old 2 1/4 Yashica TLR that has a waist level viewfinder. Still it great shape and takes great pictures (although I have to admit that because of the convenience of digital and even of the 35mm SLR I donít use it often anymore). The waist level finder is cool once you get used to it, although hard to see in bright light without a hood (which is a hang to use).

The camera is bigger than my 35mm body only, but actually a little smaller than my 35 with the lens I usually use, a 35-200 zoom. So itís not all that bulky. But it is a fixed focal length lens, so you have to use the foot zoom , and doesnít have the TTL metering, program modes, etc. But a 2 1/4 neg or slide is a joy to print from, and the enlargements can be awesome. This is, of course, why so many pros use medium format.

Ugly
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-08-2000, 11:36 AM
pulykamell pulykamell is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 30,146
can't exactly explain why the ratios of prints never followed the aspect ratio of the neg, but if you are really concerned, just ask your printer to print your photos "full frame." all the custom places do this and a good deal of consumer-level places can also handle this simple request. basically, you'll get a smaller photo on an 8x10 print (or whatever your request) and generally a black border will appear around the entire image due to the end of the negative's frame. some people hate this black border, but in most cases, i love it. some photographers consider this a mark of honor because, well, it is ONE sign of good photography -- if you can get the whole picture full-frame, well-composed, wasting no space. others consider it showing-off. nothing wrong with cropping -- most photos require cropping, and it's amazing how much better a photo can be made with a decent crop. but it's good to get into the habit of shooting tight and cropping within the camera's viewfinder.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-09-2000, 01:56 AM
Triskadecamus Triskadecamus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
In which crow is served, and the author eats thereof.

Ok, so I got out a whole box of old negatives. Turns out that whole "film guides mostly larger along one side" is kind of iffy. I measured a few random samples from my newest film camera, which is about 15 years old. Ok, the bottom band is a bit bigger, but it doesn't really qualify as "mostly" along one side. Maybe a millimeter and a half difference, and on some rolls, none at all.

I dug way down in the box, for pictures from older cameras, and there was more difference. Nearly two millimeters difference. (3.5 and 5.5) Still not as much as it looked like to me, without measuring. Also there was more variation. Looser parts, I guess. That camera was from the fifties, and I used it up into the eighties.

Mea culpa, I spoke out of my ass. But they really do look uneven, at least to me.

By the way, I don't own a new film camera.

Tris.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-11-2000, 08:56 AM
RavingMad RavingMad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Sailor and pulykamell: It's not that I can't get the photo printed from MotoPhoto in the same aspect ratio as the original neg; in fact I've already done so (well, still trying, actually as the dumbasses keep making mistakes like printing the wrong neg, making color corrections when I specified none be made, neglecting to slip in a cardboard backing so the enlargement gets crumpled, etc - but that is a whole other story. The point is that they're printing it 8x12). It's just a pain that I'll have to get a custom frame and matting - not an expense I was planning on.

As far as why frame makers do this to me, my guess is that RJKUgly is probably right on the money. I recognized the fact that 35mm is by and large an amateur's format, I just neglected to take it to the next step and realize that most amateurs shoot like, well, amateurs. "The slight extra enlargement and cropping of these [amateurs'] pictures not only doesn't hurt, but probably helps slightly," says RJKUgly. Very true. So by forcing a 'standard' 35mm enlargement into an aspect ratio whereby some of the picture will be cropped, frame manufacturers are in fact helping the amateur crowd get better looking enlargements!

In fact, I imagine most amateurs never even notice that their enlargements are coming out slightly different (and likely better) than they originally shot them. Heck, I'm a pretty good photog myself and am even starting to make some money off my images, and yet never even noticed the difference in aspect ratios until <pauses to check date on first posting> a week ago.

I suppose my basic problem, all modesty aside, is that I'm shooting with a professional's eye on an amateur's medium.

Oh, and Tris, thanks for owning up to your mistake about "film guides [being] mostly larger along one side." The others were doing a good job of getting on your case, so I didn't want to jump into the fray as well, but it was good of you to own up to being wrong. There's far too little of that life in general, and especially little around here!
__________________
~ Complacency is far more dangerous than outrage ~
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-18-2000, 07:03 PM
pulykamell pulykamell is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 30,146
whoa, whoa, whoa...

hold on a sec. 35mm is _hardly_ an amateur's medium. unless you consider jim nachtwey, robert capa, robert doisneau, henri cartier-bresson, eugene smith, etc, etc, etc, pretty much every press photographer in the world, plus a decent slew of magazine photogs (myself included.) most of national geographic's assignments are shot on 35mm slide. 95% of sports illustrated is 35mm. i even know a lot of fashion photographers who shoot 35, but this particular segment of the industry still is more favored by medium-format shooters. i'm not really sure where you get the idea 35mm is an amateur's medium but that is absolutely incorrect.

next time you go shoot, (if color is your medium) take along a roll of fujichrome velvia (50 ISO) film, or fuji provia 100F or some Kodachrome 25 or 64. if you truly have a professional eye, then you should get some damned good results on these films IF you expose absolutely correctly. if you're gonna err, err on the side of slight underexposure (opposite of the rule for negs.) you will be shocked at how much of a difference slide film makes compared with neg. color is much more contrasty, much more vibrant. images just "pop" out at you. but you have to be really precise with your lighting and exposure. otherwise they will be washed out and dull. you can screw up by maybe, maybe 2/3 of a stop.

and velvia is virtually grainless. you can pretty much enlarge to poster size without being disturbed by grain. (although slide will cost you a fortune to get printed up properly. the only really true-to-the-original printing process is called Ilfochrome aka Cibachrome.)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.