Could you explain this further? I'm not convinced yet. Why then does tonality appear much smoother in a fine-grained slow film (e.g. Pan F) than in a faster film (e.g. HP5+) given the same film size?
Could you explain this further? I'm not convinced yet. Why then does tonality appear much smoother in a fine-grained slow film (e.g. Pan F) than in a faster film (e.g. HP5+) given the same film size?If you take a minute to think about how film works, it makes absolutely no sense that tonal gradations should be somehow better on larger formats.
All the tonality possible can be contained in a small grain cluster.
Don’t walk around with it in your pocket all day though.
No camera really likes that.
A pocket is a terrible environment for a camera. It’s humid and far more bumpy than you imagine. Ask Donald what it does to leatherette in short order.
Your beautiful vintage folder is going to look like crap in a week
I'm looking for a walk around camera to supplement my more 'serious' medium format gear (Rolleiflex & Bronica SQ) for some intentional street photography. Currently that's 35mm (Canon 7 & Olympus OM1), but I'm thinking of getting a compact 645 setup instead, namely a Konica Pearl folder because there's no way I can afford the Bronica RF645 I actually want, and I had the Fuji GS645S but didn't love the handling or fragility. If the RF645 wasn't destined to be an electronically dead brick one day I'd seriously consider selling everything and just getting one.
I know the "645 is no better than 35mm" thing is mostly rubbish, it's still a huge jump in format, but what about when you bring different quality optics into it? The Pearl has a decent Tessar, and apparently for a folder it's pretty good, but it's still an old folder. Alternatively I could invest more heavily in 35mm, maybe jumping ship to Contax to get my hands on a Planar, or really saving up and getting a Leica M2 and some modern Voigtlander glass. Would the resolution difference of 645 still be a big deal then?
My shooting style, even when doing street, is pretty slow and intentional so I'm not hugely fussed by the cost difference in film, it'd still take me a while to get through a roll of 16 on 645.
Because slow film almost always has more contrast and a different distribution of the range than faster film.Could you explain this further? I'm not convinced yet. Why then does tonality appear much smoother in a fine-grained slow film (e.g. Pan F) than in a faster film (e.g. HP5+) given the same film size?
No it’s not.
Though it’s a common fallacy.
Grain is not binary. It can be and most often is exposed and developed to any degree.
With a monodisperse emulsion, you can in theory have all the range in one grain. But overlap is almost always an important factor in reaching DMax.
I don’t really get what you are saying?Thanks for this clarification, But note that, as you have mentioned (overlap), the density of grains in a given area will contribute to tonality quality. A bigger negative will require less magnification and for practical purposes, will be equivalent as increasing the density of grains in a negative.
And this is what is meant when some people say "bigger format giving better tonality".
I don't understand how the sensitometric curves tell me anything about the smoothness of tones in the image? In the curve, the smoothness of the transition from one tone to the next is an artefact created by joining the data points - surely?Because slow film almost always has more contrast and a different distribution of the range than faster film.
Look at the curves on the datasheet if available. That is almost all you need to know about the tonality of the film.
And when you factor in that the final result requires less magnification, the results differ.I don’t really get what you are saying?
The thickness of the emulsion is the same on different formats.
The density and characteristic curve is the same.
Of course. But with regards to tonality not.And when you factor in that the final result requires less magnification, the results differ.
Tonality is an aspect of contrast. So yes, the characteristic curve and to a large extent the MTF curve and the spectral sensitivity curve is a plotting of the possible tonality of the film, subjected to a scene or chart with gradation.I don't understand how the sensitometric curves tell me anything about the smoothness of tones in the image? In the curve, the smoothness of the transition from one tone to the next is an artefact created by joining the data points - surely?
And when you factor in that the final result requires less magnification, the results differ.
Tonality is an aspect of contrast. So yes, the characteristic curve and to a large extent the MTF curve and the spectral sensitivity curve is a plotting of the possible tonality of the film, subjected to a scene or chart with gradation.
Graininess is not a part of the definition.
Perhaps to a some degree via inference micro contrast which also describes tonal relationships, but not necessarily.
Staying with what you know will normally yield better results. Vivian Maier (and others) demonstrated that the Rolleiflex can be an excellent street camera. Visualising and setting the parameters in advance is key to acting fast - if required for your style. And you are in luck - you can get a Rolleiflex equipped with a Planar.I have my Rollei for compact WLF fun (and I do looove the WLF, I crop most of my 6x6 to 4:5 anyway so it's almost a 645 camera anyway).
...
So if you take a 36x24mm crop from a 6x6 frame, that will somehow have worse/different tonality?As you can probably tell, Helge and I disagree on what we mean when we reference tonality. In particular, we disagree about the role that grain plays.
One thing I would emphasize though is that my concept of "tonality" is mostly rooted in the final presentation, not the steps that one takes to get there.
For negative + positive processes, one can't really appreciate "tonality" or any other facet of the appearance of the final product until one sees that product.
I've found, in my use, that it is easier to end up with prints that have good tonality, if one is working from larger negatives.
I have made many prints from 35mm film that I would describe as having excellent tonality. And I've worked with larger negatives that wouldn't yield a print with good tonality if it was in the hands of the finest printer in the world.
Let me ask some Socratic style questions that might help clear up what we could use hours discussing.Helge, correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect your definition of 'tonality' is simply the way in which brightness in the subject is translated into density in the image? I think the rest of us are using the word in a broader sense to mean the aesthetics of tones in the finished print, as Matt describes. I was particularly thinking of the smooth transition from one tone to another around surfaces like e.g. an egg.
Your initial point was that the rendition of tones in the negative takes place on such a small scale that a change of negative size is irrelevant. So I imagine you would say that screen images, where smooth transition of tones has everything to do with pixel count - is a false comparison because a pixel is still large compared with the screen image, whereas a silver grain is tiny relative to either negative or print?
I've never done this, but I imagine that if I photograph an egg on 35mm FP4+, 6x6 FP4+ or 5x7 FP4+, the transition of tones around the surface of the egg will look smoother in both negative and print (more so) from the larger formats. You describe this as a fallacy, if I understand you correctly. Within the 35mm format, I have used films with different speeds (and therefore grain size), and a range of different developers and development times (and therefore grain size). That experience supports what I'd always understood, that the finer the grain size in the negative, and the lower the magnification in the print, the smoother the transition of tones appears. I expect this trend to continue as one steadily increases negative area, with the accompanying decrease in magnification for the same size print. Am I deluding myself?
What are you doing with the crop? If, at the time of printing, you enlarge it the same amount as you enlarged the entire 6x6 negative, than that smaller, cropped print from the portion of the image will have similar tonality to the entire larger print from the full negative.So if you take a 36x24mm crop from a 6x6 frame, that will somehow have worse/different tonality?
Not entirely. It is a discussion about the relative merits of cameras, and film formats.Well, this thread has gone off the rails a bit.
Well, this thread has gone off the rails a bit.
Not entirely. It is a discussion about the relative merits of cameras, and film formats.
So tonality changes with viewing distance and/or magnification?What are you doing with the crop? If, at the time of printing, you enlarge it the same amount as you enlarged the entire 6x6 negative, than that smaller, cropped print from the portion of the image will have similar tonality to the entire larger print from the full negative.
I say similar tonality, because you will be tempted to view the smaller print from a closer distance, which will complicate the comparison.
If you are enlarging the smaller portion to the same size print as the full 6x6 negative is printed, then it will have poorer tonality.
All necessary corrections being made, of course, for the differences in aspect ratio.
So that topic doesn't interest you? And was dithering a pun?I am seeing a lot of dithering going on here. Such fuss and bother. Oh dear. Oh dear. Oh dear.
And was dithering a pun?
So that topic doesn't interest you? And was dithering a pun?
Not in analogue society.
ny “street photographer” you hear about, read about, watch a documentary on, or randomly spot, almost always goes out with the sole intent of photography.
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?