Mortensen wrote extensively on the different photos derived from different sized cameras - what today we would call 35mm, medium format and large format.
Do different format sizes produce different images?
-
A
- Thread starter tomfrh
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nikon F2AS + Nikkon 50mm f/1.8 Ai - CLA'd in July 2025.
- Started by Alex Varas
-
Sold Fujica Super Fujica-6 folder, 6x6
- Started by Dan Daniel
-
Want to Buy WTB: "As Maine Goes" by John McKee
- Started by TheTrailTog
-
For Sale Zenza Bronica S2 Outfit - S2 Body, 75mm lens, 135mm lens, 120 film back
- Started by indy_kid
Forum statistics
Are we allowed to refer to he-whose-name-we-do-not-speak in the context of photography? The dear departed Saint Ansel is turning over in his grave!
The larger the format, the smoother the gradation, especially in micro-contrast. But the larger the format, the less depth of field at a given aperture.
Note, too, that different enlarging lenses (and this means specific examples, not different designs) provide different performance, From what I've read, this has a lot to do with the difficulty of centering all the elements of a lens perfectly. Enlarging lenses are the most demanding of the lenses that most of us use. So a 35mm enlargement with a perfect enlarging lens could give a better looking image than an enlargement from a 6x9 image with a poor enlarging lens, even if the two lenses were of identical design except for focal length.
By the way, Adams said of Mortensen that his technique was flawless, it was only his subject matter that he disliked.
Note, too, that different enlarging lenses (and this means specific examples, not different designs) provide different performance, From what I've read, this has a lot to do with the difficulty of centering all the elements of a lens perfectly. Enlarging lenses are the most demanding of the lenses that most of us use. So a 35mm enlargement with a perfect enlarging lens could give a better looking image than an enlargement from a 6x9 image with a poor enlarging lens, even if the two lenses were of identical design except for focal length.
By the way, Adams said of Mortensen that his technique was flawless, it was only his subject matter that he disliked.
Part of the issue to 'what difference is there?' is the issue of comparable FL, especially when the diagonal is often used as the basis of comparison of 'equivalent FL'. But the frames are 5:4, 4:3, 3:2 in aspect ratio...and then there is the issue of 'normal' on 135 NOT being the diagonal measure at all, but longer! It is silly to compare 50mm on 135 vs. 150mm on 4x5, for example, the two 'normals', as one sees a 14.3' x 21.5' at a shooting distance of 30' while the other sees 20' x 25'.
To make the 'equal FOV' to be comparable, it is good to compare the SHORT DIMENSION of each frame, then choose FL based upon some multiple of that frame dimension. In the case of 24 x 36mm frame dimension in 135 vs. 93 x 120mm frame dimension in 4x5, if we use 24mm and 93mm dimensions as the base factor, then choose (arbitrary) multiple two. This multiple works for WA and tele, for 'same vertical FOV'.
24mm FL on 135 sees the same vertical frame as 93mm on 4x5.
96mm FL on 135 sees the same vertical frame as 372mm on 4x4
96mm FL on 135 sees the same vertical frame as 372mm on 4x4
2 * 24mm (vertical FOV on 135) = 2 * 93mm (vertical FOV on 4x5); that is where I got the
48mm FL vs. 186mm FL would provide same vertical frame area at the identical camera position
Last edited:
I understand that towards the end, Mortensen used a 'blad and a MAC.
I understand using 48mm v 186mm and your logic of doubling the height to get the same image. But in the calculator you used 96mm, not 186mm.
Why? Is it a typo or is there a reason to change from 186 to 96?
Last edited:
I think he maybe put wrong number into the app? I just checked and if you put in 186mm the curves match.
I've asked a few people what they mean.
Most times it's due to misunderstanding on their part, eg confusion about lens compression; thinking a 150mm normal gives you more "compression" and depth of field "pop" than a 50mm normal. So I ignore them.
But some others have assured me that same equivalent optics nonetheless give a superior image and that it's more than just size. The saying it's some optical property which transform the image into something better, which can be seen at any enlargement.
I've not heard them give a sufficient answer - people say the don't know the optics of it. But it's there, and that it's not simply bigger-neg/less-enlargement.
Hence why I'm asking you guys if it exists.
I suspect it's all down to film size, but would like to know about other aspects if they do indeed exist.
Hi Tom,
I shoot all formats from 35mm through 8x10.
So I have had the opportunity to compare many combinations.
Up through 4x5 I enlarge using the best available lenses.
I have all of the Schneider APO-Componon HM series.
The only real differences I've noticed have been attributable to technical characteristics.
Of course, since I'm an engineer, I have zero artistic cells in my brain.
- Leigh
I shoot all formats from 35mm through 8x10.
So I have had the opportunity to compare many combinations.
Up through 4x5 I enlarge using the best available lenses.
I have all of the Schneider APO-Componon HM series.
The only real differences I've noticed have been attributable to technical characteristics.
Of course, since I'm an engineer, I have zero artistic cells in my brain.
- Leigh
Even bad people can sometimes make great decisions. When will you start?
I mainly take photos of people. Tight portraits and headshots mostly. I use 35mm primarily, sometimes 645 or 67. I've used 4x5 but find it a hassle.
For 5x7 or 8x10 I find the 35mm is fine if using fine grain film. I don't find medium format to be necessary for that, but do sometimes wonder if it would provide benefits regardless...
My goof!
Shows even the far background blur is very similar, just as tomfrh indicated. In fact, at f/15.5 the curves align even out at 9km distance behind subject
(going back to fix my earlier post).
So it comes down to A) size of grain on print, and B) differences attributed to far more grains/dye clouds to improve upon tonals gradations in the large format print
Last edited:
A while back, during one of these endless MF vs. 35mm discussions, someone posted detailed information showing that the resolution of a lens went down as the focal length increased. The result of this is that, ceteris paribus, the image information at the film plane for a "standard" lens in 35mm or 120 (or 4x5 or...) is the same. The only difference is the effective image quality resulting from the interaction of the resolution and film grain. This may have been an issue back when 116 film was all the rage, but with modern films it is moot.
The thing these discussions always miss is the ceterises aren't ever paribus, and the construction and quality of the lens are the determining factors. I have shots taken with a Pen sporting a 25mm lens that are razor sharp. These will make beautiful enlargements to 8x10 and larger (Olympus proved this by doing a road show where folks were challenged to tell the difference between Pen images and competitor's full frame cameras, up to 16x20. There is no visible difference.). On the other hand, I have 6x9 shots from a Foldex20 that aren't even good at 6x9.
I love 120. 6x4.5 is nice, but throwing a 6x9 tranny from a Medalist or Bessa on a light table is sublime. My greatest wish is that half the Ektachrome in the freezer was 120. But I'll put the Medalist's Ektar up against a Zuiko 50f1.8 MIJ "body cap" any day and bet the Zuiko wins.
Very very true! Rodenstock has lens brochures with discussions of the apparently 'low MTF' of large format lenses vs. what folks might be accustomed to see on 135 format lens tests.
They go on to point out the need for 4X greater enlargement to make the same final print from 135 format, so that although there is a 2X difference in MTF numbers, after 4X more enlargement the detail resolution on paper ends up with the large format print winning the resolution war.
For example if LF lens MTF = 44, while 135 format MTF = 80. If you make a 16x20" print, the MTF on paper is 11 (44/4X) for LF vs. 5.4 (88/16.9X) for 135 format.
I am constantly reminding digital forum people about the need to consider the LENS in the debate about FF vs. APS-C image quality, it is not merely about sensor pixel count! Shame on me
for forgetting my own admonition when talking earlier about format comparisons on film!Hmm, so which is it? Does it come out the same, or does LF's area outweigh its per mm MTF disadvantage? I'd always assumed the latter...i.e. that with infinitely fine grained film a LF image will still be better at high enlargement.
Last edited:
As a practical matter my larger format films produce prints with more detail than my smaller format prints. No exceptions that I've seen.
I have noticed a different look to the images from my Pentax 67 Takumars when compared to images from similar era Pentax 35mm Takumars or later PK versions. Similarly, I see a difference between my 6x7 and 4x5 images but I don't have similar era/construction/formula lenses for the 4x5.
I don't have any proof that there isn't any pixie dust but I also cannot explain why my Takumar 105/2.4 has a different signature/look to it than anything I've seen put on 35mm film, even trying to match the "equivalent" that is a ~55mm f/1.1. A Noctilux 50mm f/1.0 E60 does not give the same sort of look, nor does a Rokkor 58mm f/1.2, nor a Canon FL 58/1.2 etc. Different lens characteristic AKA look as a combination of it's flaws and strengths is what I have accepted as the difference.
Shoot the MF lens on 35mm film and it will show some similar characteristics but it will not produce the same sort of final image as on it's native format. It sounds obvious along with this, but a 105mm Takumar for 6x7 will not look the same as a Takumar 105mm for 35mm and you can try that out for yourself if you pick up a 105/2.4 P67 lens, a 105/2.8 M42 lens, P67
K or P67:M42 adapter, and a suitable 35mm camera.
I don't have any proof that there isn't any pixie dust but I also cannot explain why my Takumar 105/2.4 has a different signature/look to it than anything I've seen put on 35mm film, even trying to match the "equivalent" that is a ~55mm f/1.1. A Noctilux 50mm f/1.0 E60 does not give the same sort of look, nor does a Rokkor 58mm f/1.2, nor a Canon FL 58/1.2 etc. Different lens characteristic AKA look as a combination of it's flaws and strengths is what I have accepted as the difference.
Shoot the MF lens on 35mm film and it will show some similar characteristics but it will not produce the same sort of final image as on it's native format. It sounds obvious along with this, but a 105mm Takumar for 6x7 will not look the same as a Takumar 105mm for 35mm and you can try that out for yourself if you pick up a 105/2.4 P67 lens, a 105/2.8 M42 lens, P67
K or P67:M42 adapter, and a suitable 35mm camera.This is the sort of comment I was originally asking about in the original post. Good to have someone here who experiences it.
How would you describe the differences between the 105/2.4 and equivalent 35mm lenses?
Shoot the MF lens on 35mm film and it will show some similar characteristics but it will not produce the same sort of final image as on it's native format. It sounds obvious along with this, but a 105mm Takumar for 6x7 will not look the same as a Takumar 105mm for 35mm and you can try that out for yourself if you pick up a 105/2.4 P67 lens, a 105/2.8 M42 lens, P67
Weird. So, aside from image circle, what's the difference between the 6x7 and 35mm 105s then? Can anyone explain it?
I don't understand what the question is. We have already seen that
- with suitable FL and aperture, both formats produces identical FOV and same DOF zone and same far background blur,
- but the larger format image has better tonality and gradations of tonality than the smaller format due to more grains/color clouds used to form the image for the same amount of subject on a larger area of film.
- and the larger format has the advantage in detail resolution delivered to the final print because of lower enlargement of the negative.
In this case I was querying your and thuggins comments about large format vs 35mm lens resolution (i.e. independent of the film). Thuggins said that the image information at the film plane is "the same" for any format (i.e. poorer sharpness of a large format lens completely offsets the increased image area, and that the only remaining factor is the film). But you said the large format image is twice as good (irrespective of film grain), because the increased image area more than compensates for the reduced sharpness per mm.
What makes you think longer lenses have lower resolution?
- Leigh
- Leigh
It wasn't longer lenses per se, but that larger formats lenses (which are longer than their smaller format equivalents), have lower MTF than their respective smaller format equivalent.
That's my understanding of it (presumably there's a trade off between image circle size and MTF)
Thuggins suggested this entirely cancels out the increase in size, leaving only the film as the deciding factor (a small piece of film cannot capture that image as well as a large piece of film).
Wiltw however said that the MTF disadvantage of larger format lens is more than compensated for by the larger image area. Ie a large format lens projects a more detailed image, no just a bigger image. That's before film even comes into the equation.
EDIT: This page here http://www.photodo.com/topic_138.html suggests that the format size has relatively little effect on image sharpness, and that a 35mm lens image is effectively as good as a large format image, except that it's smaller. This would appear to agree with what thuggins said...
EDIT2: This page says different: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html, that LF lens projects more detail, i.e. that the area more than makes up for the reduced MTF, which agrees with what wiltw said.
Last edited:
One way of thinking about it is that there is only a certain amount of detail resolution that a lens can provide, and if you spread it out over a larger image circle it is hard to provide the same line-pairs per millimeter at the film plane (a conceptual description, which may not be acceptably accurate description to an optical physicist/engineer). So companies like Rodenstock freely admit and publish MTF charts for large format lenses which shows exactly that!...fewer line-pairs per millimeter from LF lenses than the MTF charts for 135 format lenses.
After you take the 44 line-pairs per millimeter on 4x5 film, and enlarge it by 4X, you end up with 11 line-pairs per millimeter of 8x10" paper print; similarly 80 line-pairs per millimeter at the 135 film, after enlarged by 8.5X, results in 80 / 8.5 line-pairs or 9.4 line-pairs on 8x10" paper print. The 135 format lens would need to provide OVER 100 line-pairs per millimeter at the film plane to offset the greater magnification that is needed to make the same size print and deliver more line-pairs per millimeter on the 8x10" paper print.
Last edited:
In other words:
By raising formats the gain in possible film resolution per image width is larger than the loss of lens resolution.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |