35mm big enough for quality prints?

[thuggins]

The standard for Zuiko lenses was always 20"x30". The half frame Pens were universally acknowleged as indistinguishable from full frame up to 16"x20". Modern films are essentially "grain free", compared to emulsions from 30+ years ago.

 

[Russ - SVP]

I routinely burn 160, 400 and 800 speed films on wedding shoots, and with high quality, high res scanning, I can obtain very nice large prints. The "pro" films and lenses of today, are much better than what we had, even ten years ago. I have 11x17" prints from Portra 800 filom, where the grain is almost non existent. And the Kodak 400UC film is incredible. Very fine grained, wonderful colors & flesh tones. And the 100 speed films are amazing.

Russ

 

[PeterB]

Why is tonal gradation worse in 35mm ??

Well, enough people have made reference to the reduction in "smoothness of tonal gradation" in 35mm in this thread to get me concerned. I confess full ignorance to this fact, let alone understanding why it is so. It seems to be assumed knowledge amongst those of you experienced with MF and LF.

So all other things being equal, can somebody please tell me why I can't get the same tonal range onto a print made from a 35mm neg cf. a larger negative of the same film, same scene, same exposure conditions, same developer etc etc.

regards
Peter

Lol, IMHO the biggest advantage of medium/large format is in the gradation, particularly noticable in monochrome work.

What is important when you print from a small negative is to get proper contrast. Too many people end up with flat, ugly stuff when they enlarge a lot. You need to get proper exposure, development, proper paper grade, a good paper developer, know how to dodge and burn, etc. If your goal is to get the smooth tones of MF or LF, forget about it, it just won't happen. But you can make excellent full-scale prints if you set your heart to it.

But let's not kid ourselves. In photography there's no substitute for square inches and 35mm gives you all of 1 1/2 to play with. And the real issue here isn't necessarily grain or apparent sharpness - it's smoothness of gradation, particularly in the highlights. You can create adjacency effects till the cows come home in 35mm - so much so, in fact, that I believe you can actually make an 8x10 print in 35mm appear sharper than a print of the same size taken in 120 with good equipment. But smooth, translucent highlights? Not a chance.

I've developed 35mm FP4+ negs in straight Edwal 20 from the photographer's Formulary (and that's about as solvent as you can get, btw) and at 8x10 there is still, very definitely, inferior highlight gradation relative to any MF negative enlarged to the same print size I have ever seen. And I've seen many of those. The highlights will betray 35mm every time once we are above about 4x.

 

[thuggins]

PeterB, there is no real mystery about the tonality difference between negatives (or slides) of different physical sizes. Tonality is typically defined as the ability of a film to record subtle, localized differences in light levels. When you make a photograph, photons are reflected from your subject, thru the camera lens and projected onto the film. The larger the negative, the more the photons are allowed to spread out. The smaller the negative, the more the photons are forced to "clump together". So much for the theory.

The big debate that has been going on here (and everywhere this topic comes up) boils down how much is the difference and how much is it worth? Most people claim that they can see a difference in the finished print, and there is no doubt it is visible. But there are factors other than tonality that contribute to the overall image you can make. Everything involves trade-offs, and 35 mm has long been regarded as the best overall solution. Otherwise, we would all be wetting our own 8"x10" glass plates.

 

[PeterB]

If possible, assume for a moment that grain size is NOT the limiting factor - i.e. the emulsion has no grain. Then would the (spatial ?) resolution of the lens be the main reason that the "clumped together photons" are not faithfully transmitted to the film ?

Why is this effect more pronounced in the highlights ?

PeterB, there is no real mystery about the tonality difference between negatives (or slides) of different physical sizes. Tonality is typically defined as the ability of a film to record subtle, localized differences in light levels. When you make a photograph, photons are reflected from your subject, thru the camera lens and projected onto the film. The larger the negative, the more the photons are allowed to spread out. The smaller the negative, the more the photons are forced to "clump together". So much for the theory.

 

[polaski]

Yes.

Some of the finest prints I have seen were under 8x10 inches.

 

[RobC]

If possible, assume for a moment that grain size is NOT the limiting factor - i.e. the emulsion has no grain. Then would the (spatial ?) resolution of the lens be the main reason that the "clumped together photons" are not faithfully transmitted to the film ?

Why is this effect more pronounced in the highlights ?

its all a question of enlargement. To make an 8x10 from 35mm requires approx 8 times enlargement. From 6x4.5 it requires approx 4 times enlargement. That means the 35mm film needs twice the enlargement for the same size print.
The grain is the same size on film for both formats. That means the grain structure will be enlarged twice as much for 35mm format and enlarging grain adds visible granularity to the tone gradients. I don't mean you can actually see the grain. I mean it just looks coarser. Or to put it another way, it won't look quite as smooth. Thats not necessarily a bad thing. That reduced smoothness is usually more evident in highlights, especially in light grey skies.

Spatial Resolution? WTFIT. I think you are getting ahead of yourself.
Photons don't do clumping. Thats the preserve of film grain and thats down to developer used.

 

[pcyco]

hallo

i dont like to read the whole 6 sides but,
last film was a tmax100 in d76 1+3 at 20 degree celsius.(eos 5 wit a 50/1,4)
by enlarging it to last week it was really hard to find the grain, enlarging size 30/40 cm (12x16 inch).

i think there are so many factors.

ag

thomas

 

[keithwms]

If possible, assume for a moment that grain size is NOT the limiting factor - i.e. the emulsion has no grain. Then would the (spatial ?) resolution of the lens be the main reason that the "clumped together photons" are not faithfully transmitted to the film ?

Why is this effect more pronounced in the highlights ?

For the issue of tonality I don't see how grain effects can be neglected.

As a simplistic thought experiment, imagine that every individual grain in a piece of film can be pure white or pure black- exposed or unexposed, zero or one (to borrow a digital analogy).

Now if you photograph a continuous transition from white to black, you quickly see that the grain density determines how smooth that transition will be rendered by the film.

If you have a low grain density then you get grainy, posterized-looking transitions. In the limit that the grain density becomes very high, you get better looking, continuous transitions. This effects tends to matter more in scenes that have fast highlight transitions because our eyes & brains are more attuned to changes of tone rather than absolute tones.

This is a very simplistic way of thinking about it, of course- real grain isn't just pure white or pure black, but you get the idea as it relates to granularity and how smoothly a transition is rendered.

Anyway, on the subject of what format is "good enough" to get what size print, ultimately you have to decide for yourself. I don't like to think about this issue in terms of "good enough" or "not good enough." To me it is a practical issue of equipment: how much light is available to compose and to expose, do I need a fast lens, how much time do I have to frame my subject, do I need a fast shutter speed, will I need to bracket... can I take the shot without disturbing the subject... etc. If those factors didn't matter then yeah, I'd do everything on 8x10" film. But nothing beats a 35mm for some tasks. Print quality doesn't amount to a hill of beans if you can't [conveniently] get the shot in the first place. And a well-executed 35mm print can be truly remarkable, at any reasonable size.

 

[Gigabitfilm]

PeterB - Your question about reducing qualities in highlights.

There exist 2 kinds of emulsions - the one has different grain sizes, the emulsion need for classical developers different grain sizes to produce from A BUNDLE OF DIFFERENT GRAINS A STATISTICAL GREY TONE.

The other is a monodisperse emulsion, where every grain has the same size than the other. In classical developers you get too strong heavy gammas. My work in Gigabitfilm since 1986 was building up methods, to use the single grain as an unlimited grey scale.

Back to classical films and classical developers. You will know, what is a gradation curve. Please imagine -parallel to this gradation curve- a curve of highest resolution. At around density D = 0,4 -let's say- will be the point of best resolution. At higher densities the curve will going down. Depending on the different developers on the market, this function will have very different "GOING DOWNS" of the higher densities parts of this resolution curve. What make the curve going down and let show highlights looking grey-smeared? It is the diffusion aspect of oxydised and infecting developer, of halogene, of luminescence, of infecting silver ions and so on.

All so-called micro soft developers, developers for document films, low contrast developers and so on - existing in the market today, will show on all high resolution films a dramatic very quick going down curve of best resolution. Gigabitfilm-chemistry with its internal fogging shows this not.

Working for institutes, once in 1994 I had the work to reduce aerial mapping contacts (300x300mm german WW-II format) to reduce on 35mm film in 24x24mm. After several trials it works (for ABSOLUTE identifying the tiny black points of duds) with a very well lens at stop 1:2.8 on Contax RTS III with its vacuum. For to copy on 35mm today from high speed aerial (230x230mm ISO 200 films and +) negativefilms I have the opinion, it could be in a lot of cases possible to get identity, but to copy from high definition aerial negative films 230x230mmon to 35mm it would be not sufficient.

Going down to mother earth, in photographic practical work now you can compare b/w classical film 8x10 inch with 35mm monodisperse film - under which conditions you will have equality: This was once done with TMax 100 8x10" (8x10 is 194,7 x 243,2mm real picture size, lf-optic was 11/480mm stop 44) and a Gigabitfilm 35mm with 900 lp/mm (optic was 3.5/50mm with stop 8-11), please see

http://www.gigabitfilm.de/html/english/information/4x5/examples/examples.php?Layout=normal

From a theoretical point of vue: At stop 1:44 you have 30 lp/mm, 243,2 mm x 30 = 7296 lp/mm, at stop 1:8 you have 174 lp/mm, 36 x 174 = 6264 lp/mm.

From a theoretical point of vue: Today you will have with the new generation of 35mm Zeiss-lenses enhanced resolution values, let us be very conservativ and let us say, these Zeiss lenses are diffraction limited with stop 1:5.6 with 250 lp/mm, 36 x 250 = 9000 lp/mm 9000 : 243,2 = 37 lp/mm, 43 lp/mm is the diffraction limit for stop 1:32, 32 is a very normal stop in large format, little less used than the absolut normal 22.

From a theoretical point of vue: Comparing stop 22 in 8x10 lf to 35mm: 61 lp/mm x 243,2 = 14835 14835 : 36 = 411 lp/mm, the stop 1:2.8 has diffracted limited 492 lp/mm resolution. Payable for photographer, in my opinion, is a diffraction limited 1:2.8 lens not today, but with magneto-resistive polishing perhaps tomorrow.

But comparing 5x7" (118,75 x 167,1 mm) and standard stop 1:22 to 35 mm ( 167,1 x 61 = 11697 lp/mm , 11697 : 36 = 324 lp/mm ,stop 1:4 has 348 lp/mm) shows, that this is absolutely possible in 35mm.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

I think 10" by 15" prints from 35mm is about a practical limit, whether from handheld or tripod mounted shots. While it is possible to get larger prints, the subject matter, contrast, and colour (or tonality in B/W) will start to become greater factors on whether the larger print will still remain compelling. As a few have mentioned, 6x4.5 is slightly easier to fit into the same, or just larger print sizes; and many of the cameras that allow this film size are not that much larger and heavier than some top of the line 35mm gear.

If you look at some of the very large prints from Galen Rowell or Thomas Mangulson, then 35mm does indeed work well for some subjects. Consider that every aspect of your approach should be nearer to optimum, and then perhaps it is more realistic. Just because something is possible does not always make it the best choice.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

 

[PeterB]

Hi Rob,

Thanks for your reply.

In my ignorance I assumed that if I couldn't see the grain when viewing a print then I also shouldn't be able to see any difference in tonal smoothness when the negs are different sizes.

That wrong assumption led me to wonder what on earth people were talking about in this thread when they said that MF and LF prints have smoother tones. (i.e. If viewing two prints of the same size, one from a 35mm neg print and the other from a larger neg print and assuming no grain was visible on either print, then the larger neg print has smoother tones)

When Tim replied to my question, he wrote:

...When you make a photograph, photons are reflected from your subject, thru the camera lens and projected onto the film. The larger the negative, the more the photons are allowed to spread out. The smaller the negative, the more the photons are forced to "clump together".

(my emphasis added)

I then saw NO reference to grain in Tim's answer which further reinforced (in my mind) the bad assumption that the difference in tonal smoothness was unrelated to grain !!

In fact I was on the verge of writing back to tell Tim that it has nothing to do with photons clumping or spreading (as I was a tad suspicious) . But I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt (silly me), assume his explanation was right and request clarification on the matter by forcing people to exclude grain from their answers !!!

Now everyone has written back and told me it's mostly all about grain !!!
Thanks to those who set me straight.

Regarding the "spatial resolution" of the lens, usually the term refers to the image generated by the lens, but it is sometimes loosely used to refer to the properties of the lens that govern the spatial resolution of the image formed. see here . Although I probably should have used a more appropriate term such as the lens' "resolving power"

thanks again
regards
Peter

its all a question of enlargement. To make an 8x10 from 35mm requires approx 8 times enlargement. From 6x4.5 it requires approx 4 times enlargement. That means the 35mm film needs twice the enlargement for the same size print.
The grain is the same size on film for both formats. That means the grain structure will be enlarged twice as much for 35mm format and enlarging grain adds visible granularity to the tone gradients. I don't mean you can actually see the grain. I mean it just looks coarser. Or to put it another way, it won't look quite as smooth. Thats not necessarily a bad thing. That reduced smoothness is usually more evident in highlights, especially in light grey skies.

Spatial Resolution? WTFIT. I think you are getting ahead of yourself.
Photons don't do clumping. Thats the preserve of film grain and thats down to developer used.

 

[PeterB]

Thanks Keith. You are correct. See (there was a url link here which no longer exists) (to Rob) for full clarification of my misunderstanding.

regards
Peter

For the issue of tonality I don't see how grain effects can be neglected.