Do different format sizes produce different images?

[tomfrh]

Film area/sharpness aside, do larger formats look different to smaller formats?

E.g. consider two cameras with same horizontal field of view and same depth of field:

A. 6x7 Camera, 90mm @ F/16
B. 35mm Camera, 45mm @ f/8

Take same photo with each of them.

Aside from the better sharpness/resolution/smoother-tones with the medium format, what differences are there?

I’ve heard it said that bigger formats have a unique optical “signature” which goes beyond merely having more resolution, and that you can see it at any enlargement, but no one can explain what they mean by this. What real differences are there?

 

[Sirius Glass]

The composition is made by the photographer and is fit into the format. Generally enlargements from MF can have better details and tonality. I personally prefer 6x6, and 4x5 to 135.

 

[Leigh B]

Film area/sharpness aside, do larger formats look different to smaller formats?...
Aside from the better sharpness/resolution/smoother-tones with the medium format, what differences are there?

I don't understand the question.

How can you ask about differences, then exclude from the answer all the factors that create those differences in the first place?

- Leigh

 

[markbarendt]

In the example you give the rectangles are different, so if the horizontal angle of view is equal the vertical will differ.

 

[MattKing]

A better comparison would be between a 6x9 camera and a 35mm camera.
There may be some miniscule differences between them because the 35mm film is slightly different than the 120, due to the different substrate and no backing paper, but you probably cannot see that difference.
The different lens designers employed by the two different manufacturers may have designed with slightly different criteria or priorities in mind, so there may be some differences in the qualities of the results arising from that.
But basically, no.

 

[tomfrh]

In the example you give the rectangles are different, so if the horizontal angle of view is equal the vertical will differ.

Assume the 6x7 is cropped to match, or assume 6x9 with equivalent focal length and aperture to the 35mm

 

[tomfrh]

How can you ask about differences, then exclude from the answer all the factors that create those differences in the first place?

That is what I am wondering too. Some people have told me there are other things going on too, to give a special difference to larger formats.

 

[tomfrh]

Generally enlargements from MF can have better details and tonality.

Yes I certainly agree with that. I'm more referring to the so-called "look" or "signature" of larger formats, which I've been assured is more than just superior detail/tonality.

 

[tomfrh]

A better comparison would be between a 6x9 camera and a 35mm camera.
There may be some miniscule differences between them because the 35mm film is slightly different than the 120, due to the different substrate and no backing paper, but you probably cannot see that difference.
The different lens designers employed by the two different manufacturers may have designed with slightly different criteria or priorities in mind, so there may be some differences in the qualities of the results arising from that.
But basically, no.

So, resolution aside, you can get the same image from a 35mm as a 6x9? There's no magic fairy dust that appears when you go up in size?

 

[MattKing]

So, resolution aside, you can get the same image from a 35mm as a 6x9? There's no magic fairy dust that appears when you go up in size?

If there is a difference, it may arise at the printing stage, and be quite subjective.
I like printing from 35mm negatives.
I really like printing from 6x7 negatives.
And I can't really explain why.

 

[tomfrh]

If there is a difference, it may arise at the printing stage, and be quite subjective.
I like printing from 35mm negatives.
I really like printing from 6x7 negatives.
And I can't really explain why.

Same here. I notice a difference printing. I assumed that simply due to the bigger negative, not the image per se. But like I mentioned, people have assured me it's more than that, and that the image itself is somehow different. I'm a bit skeptical of their claims...

 

[wiltw]

Using 2*vertical as the lens FL for both formats (so that both frame identical height areas, regardless of aspect ratio of the format)

• 135 format 48mm f/4 focused at 100' will frame 50' vertical, and have a (20/20 visual acuity) 165' deep DOF Zone, from 64' to 229'
• 4x5 format 186mm f/16 focused at 10' will frame 50' vertical, and have a (20/20 visual acuity) 164' deep DOF Zone, from 64' to 228'
• and 8x10" print made from 135 requires a 8.5x enlargement, while an 8x10" print made from 4x5 requires a 2x enlargement, so
• grain will be 4x larger on the 135 format print, than the 4x5 format print
• and since the grain density (or color cloud density) is the same on the negative, 4x as many grains/color clouds are used to image the same amount of subject, leading to the better tonality and gradations on the 4x5 image.
• and even matching the fact that DOF zone is nearly identical in size, the far background details will be similarly blurred on the 135 format image (see chart)

 

[tomfrh]

and in spite of the fact that DOF zone is nearly identical in size, the far background details will be far more blurred on the 135 format image (see chart)

I'm confused - where did the 96mm come from?

 

[AgX]

Lomography for instance is all about format.
"Handibility" of a camera increases the likeliness of certain images.

 

[Harry Stevens]

I read somewhere that if you fit a 35mm kit in your Rollei the entire negative will be razor sharp from corner to corner, being somebody not obsessed with lens sharpness I have never given it a go but it makes sense....

 

[darkosaric]

For me difference is not only technical, but in subject as well. That makes biggest difference. When I shoot 6x6 - automatically I am looking for different subject that with 35mm. With 35mm there are more people in the frame, and with 6x6 often landscape is more present. Different cameras are pushing me to choose different subjects. Technical details and superiority of medium/large format are secondary to me.

 

[Harry Stevens]

Aside from the better sharpness/resolution/smoother-tones with the medium format, what differences are there?

This reminds me of Monty Pythons Life Of Brian film and the "what have the Romans done for us" sketch

 

[pentaxuser]

We may be in danger of appearing to "gang-up" on tomfrh here which I am sure is not our intention. I think he has listed the differences he can understand but just wonders if there is some kinds of almost intangible differences that can be expressed in writing in simple ways.

I have sympathy with his inquiry, being one who also gets frustrated when others express "feelings" that cannot be easily expressed or measured - usually it concerns "certain somethings" wrought by Leica cameras and lenses or it might be the "magic bullet" of certain films and developer combos.

Tom, if you have two or more formats try the same size prints from each of the same or similar scenes in similar light conditions.Mark the format on the back, then shuffle the pack as Maverick might have done in the 1950s and try and pick out the format correctly each time. If you can do this with statistical certainty then for you there is a difference. If you can't then there isn't.

I'd fail that test and I do wonder whether say 2000 Joe Publics deciding from 100 prints( or whatever the statistically significant numbers are for such trials) could achieve collectively the number of correct decisions to get to a statistically significant result that rules out chance to better than 1 in a 100

pentaxuser

 

[voka_gsw]

There's no magic fairy dust. It's the exact same thing, only you get larger negative.

 

[removed account4]

There's no magic fairy dust. It's the exact same thing, only you get larger negative.

exactly!

the "signature" might be the out of focus areas / bokeh that older lenses might have ..
landscape and portrait lenses from the 20s and the early / late lenses 1800s look different than
off the shelf lenses today. that said, if you put a sharp schneider lens on a LF camera
and an equally sharp lens on a 35mm camera and you examine a contact print from the 35mm under a loupe
and examine the contact print of the LF camera the images will probably look the same.
a lot of people create a mystique / aura around LF cameras/lenses/technique &c to make it seem
so mind blowingly different than smaller format cameras ( you can exchange MF for LF too if you want ).
if you enlarge a 35mm negative to 8x10 and you enlarge a MF or LF negative the same amount
and you use the same type of lens, the images will be very much the same.

have fun !
john

 

[hsandler]

I think wiltw may be on to the difference, although I don't understand why a crop factor of 0.25 and not 0.5, and why f4 and not f8. Anyway, although the DOF may be equal, the way the out of focus rolls off outside the zone could look different. I think if you take a photo with both formats with both lenses stopped way down so that everything in the frame is essentially sharp, you will not see much difference, other than grain and resolution.

 

[narsuitus]

Do different format sizes produce different images?

This thread has inspired me to take my Fuji 6x9cm rangefinder with 65mm Fujinon lens and my Contax G1 rangefinder with Zeiss 28mm lens and shoot identical subjects with identical film. Since these two cameras have the same 2x3 aspect ratio and the same 65-degree horizontal angle-of-view, I should be able to produce "identical" images.

Based on my experience shooting small format 35mm film and medium format (6x6, 6x7, and 6x9cm) 120 film, I know there are differences in the "identical" images produced. However, I am not sure how I ignore differences in sharpness, resolution, and tonality when evaluating the other differences.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Film area/sharpness aside, do larger formats look different to smaller formats?

E.g. consider two cameras with same horizontal field of view and same depth of field:

A. 6x7 Camera, 90mm @ F/16
B. 35mm Camera, 45mm @ f/8

Take same photo with each of them.

Aside from the better sharpness/resolution/smoother-tones with the medium format, what differences are there?

I’ve heard it said that bigger formats have a unique optical “signature” which goes beyond merely having more resolution, and that you can see it at any enlargement, but no one can explain what they mean by this. What real differences are there?

the different ratios of hor vs vert will force you to compose differently such as 6x6 being square and therefore unique in composition.

 

[chassis]

tpmfrh what are people assuring you of, relative to format differences?

Regarding "signature", it's mainly related to film area (bigger is better), and higher quality lenses, on average, available in the larger formats.

What style or genre of photography are you involved with or striving for? Some of the experienced folks here can make suggestions.

 

[Leigh B]

But like I mentioned, people have assured me it's more than that, and that the image itself is somehow different.

I suggest you ask this question of whomever makes that statement at the time they make it.

Asking us to explain someone else's claims may be minimally productive.

- Leigh