Do different format sizes produce different images?

[Bill Burk]

So I would say the bottom line is... if you want decadent detail, move up in format. If you want classic form, 35mm delivers all you would need. The detail is the difference you can see at any print size. I like to think I can see it. Though you might not see it on a computer screen.

Have you given much thought to what you want?

 

[tomfrh]

A) large format cameras achieve more definition, with lesser magnification (in the final print) overwhelming lower MTF in comparison with 135 lenses

Agree!

B) different individual lenses have different "looks" as a result of different OOF rendition, different correction for barrel distortion/chromatic abberation/etc., different optical arrangements and focusing mechanisms

Agree with that too. People are attributing the differences to the format size though. The image acquires new properties as it goes up in format size, and that it's more than merely additional detail. Hence my original question - what are those properties that distinguish it from the same image taken with a smaller format?

 

[tomfrh]

So I would say the bottom line is... if you want decadent detail, move up in format. If you want classic form, 35mm delivers all you would need. The detail is the difference you can see at any print size. I like to think I can see it. Though you might not see it on a computer screen.

Have you given much thought to what you want?

I've shot with APS thru to 4x5. I use 35mm and 120 film now. 35mm with fine grain film suits me fine for small to medium sized images (up to say 8x10). But then I hear people say bigger formats produce better images at ANY size (be it a printed image, or on a computer screen), and have the special "magic" to them. So I'm wondering - what is that magic? Is it really there? Would bigger formats truly give me better small prints?

 

[David T T]

Hence my original question - what are those properties that distinguish it from the same image taken with a smaller format?

I don't think there are differences based on format, only ones based on individual lens design.

 

[Soeren]

I have a book by a danish photographer. Lars Gejl, Glimpse of the danish jungle format 23x28cm. Most of the pics are done on 35mm 2 on 6x7 with a Pentax 67. IIRC film was fuji sensia (or provia) 100. Difference is subtle but still recognizable. Detail, contrast and color rendition are different, be it from light on the day, lens, film or format or what ever those two images just stand out to me and they are small. Then again it was only after a while (but still before looking at the cheat sheet back in the book) i noticed they looked different and stood out so just browsing through they could be overlooked.

 

[tomfrh]

I don't think there are differences based on format, only ones based on individual lens design.

Youre probably right.

 

[tomfrh]

I have a book by a danish photographer. Lars Gejl, Glimpse of the danish jungle format 23x28cm. Most of the pics are done on 35mm 2 on 6x7 with a Pentax 67. IIRC film was fuji sensia (or provia) 100. Difference is subtle but still recognizable

I've noticed the same thing with colour slide photography books. The medium format can stand out.

When you say "they are small", what do you mean exactly? How small?

 

[Soeren]

I've noticed the same thing with colour slide photography books. The medium format can stand out.

When you say "they are small", what do you mean exactly? How small?

The book is 23x28 so about 20—21cm on the long side.

 

[tomfrh]

The book is 23x28 so about 20—21cm on the long side.

Thanks.

I agree. I can generally tell them apart at that level of enlargement. I remember one book in particular of similar size to yours. Mainly 35mm shots from memory, but with occasional 67 shots. I recall one aerial shot of a colourful reef that stood out as superior to the 35mm shots. An A4 size image that was extremely crisp. However if it was 5x7 I don't think I'd have noticed.

 

[tedr1]

My answer to the original question is no, apart from the (significant) differences you excluded, there is no "magic". Perhaps the "magic" is perceived by 35mm users who would like to use medium format but don't, and by medium format users who would like to use 4x5 but don't, this might be a psychological "magic" based on either envy, or, the grass always being greener on the other side?

It may not be safe to base judgements on book reproductions because of cropping that may have been done.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

I think there are many aspects of the print, the negative, and the camera that, in this discussion are being conflated, mixed all together. in addition there are enlargement issues as well as processing. How much magnification ? and viewing distances of each print. I find this line of questioning of the original post to be absurd. There are so many variations that . . . . .etc.

photography is never about HOW the information is attained(captured), but HOW its content has meaning. no body give a shit about the chemistry, or the physics. almost all people care about its significance, and how significance is assigned to content, except for a few people here.

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

the larger the format, the less depth of field at a given aperture

Because DOF is based on circle of confusion, which is itself based on the size of the final print, when you make two same-sized prints from larger and smaller negatives the smaller negative with "more DOF" gets expanded move so the DOF matches if the apertures were the same when shot. This is my understanding of the math involved.

 

[Sirius Glass]

How's about this...

A) large format cameras achieve more definition, with lesser magnification (in the final print) overwhelming lower MTF in comparison with 135 lenses

B) different individual lenses have different "looks" as a result of different OOF rendition, different correction for barrel distortion/chromatic abberation/etc., different optical arrangements and focusing mechanisms

???

Another difference can be in the contrast due to coatings. I had two lenses for my Minolta, one Rokkor and one Vivitar, same focal length and f/stops but the contrast was quite different.

 

[David T T]

Another difference can be in the contrast due to coatings. I had two lenses for my Minolta, one Rokkor and one Vivitar, same focal length and f/stops but the contrast was quite different.

Yes, very true.

 

[Vaughn]

...Hence my original question - what are those properties that distinguish it from the same image taken with a smaller format?

I think that difference is mostly in the smoother changes in tonality that larger film sizes can give. In the same scene filmed with different sized formats, a small branch might be only 4 silver grains wide in 35mm, but be tens of grain wide in 8x10...giving the branch a smoother transition of tones as a cylinder shaped object lit by the sky. Much easier to create a sense of roundness with 30 grains instead of 4.

 

[Bill Burk]

I've shot with APS thru to 4x5. I use 35mm and 120 film now. 35mm with fine grain film suits me fine for small to medium sized images (up to say 8x10). But then I hear people say bigger formats produce better images at ANY size (be it a printed image, or on a computer screen), and have the special "magic" to them. So I'm wondering - what is that magic? Is it really there? Would bigger formats truly give me better small prints?

I swear I can see a difference between my 35mm small prints and MF. And I don't think it's the square that tips me off. I think it's smooth line edges versus edges that are broken up with texture. I think it happens with fine lines like branches and hair.

The problem, if you will, is that 35mm texture is beautiful. So if your goal is a beautiful picture... you will get that with any format.

If you want edges with creamy, glowing smoothness and crispness that is not broken up in texture, then MF is an option.

That's why I ask what you want. I also shoot Minox to 4x5 and it's trite but true... each has a place in my heart.

 

[Bill Burk]

Good explanation Vaughn! Branches look more lifelike when you can sense they are round than when you see only a line.

The black and white illusion of reality is enhanced by the additional detail. But with 35mm the conveyance of mood is already complete so in many cases you need not shift up.

Nature photography is enhanced by the difference. But in terms of resolution, fine grain 35mm is already there. Even if you have the same resolution and sharpness (or lack of sharpness), there are more grains at your disposal.

 

[Bill Burk]

Here is a side by side comparison of the difference, close-up, between 11x14 prints (which I consider "small"), 35mm Panatomic-X and 4x5 TMY-2.

I can see the difference in the prints viewed at normal distance. But you can see in the close-up that the resolution and sharpness are comparable.

 

[tomfrh]

That's an interesting comparison. Thanks.

 

[Soeren]

Thanks.

I agree. I can generally tell them apart at that level of enlargement. I remember one book in particular of similar size to yours. Mainly 35mm shots from memory, but with occasional 67 shots. I recall one aerial shot of a colourful reef that stood out as superior to the 35mm shots. An A4 size image that was extremely crisp. However if it was 5x7 I don't think I'd have noticed.

Just measured one of the images. 13x18cm

 

[Bill Burk]

That's an interesting comparison. Thanks.

You're Welcome and thanks for appreciating it.

I like to think that nature photography is so well simulated by the grain of 35mm film, that you can get away with less "true" resolution. The actual moss texture blends into the texture of the film so well that it is impossible to tell where real detail fades and grain texture takes its place.

So the 35mm seems to carry the same amount of detail as 4x5

For that part of the illusion to work, you need a good enlarging lens and need to have enlarger carefully aligned and print with your grain sharp.

 

[RichardJack]

Panatomic-X...now that is a film I remember and loved.
Anyone remember the days when Kodak printed in 2r, 3r, or 3s sizes? (that's 2.5x3.5" or 3.5x5" from 35mm and 3.5x3.5" from 126, 127, & 120). I believe they sold prepaid mailers with the same designations. I think they had "PK" numbers and PK59 might of been for 35mm 20ex slides or movie film.

 

[wiltw]

Panatomic-X...now that is a film I remember and loved.
Anyone remember the days when Kodak printed in 2r, 3r, or 3s sizes? (that's 2.5x3.5" or 3.5x5" from 35mm and 3.5x3.5" from 126, 127, & 120). I believe they sold prepaid mailers with the same designations. I think they had "PK" numbers and PK59 might of been for 35mm 20ex slides or movie film.

I remember 2R and 3R print sizes, the family album had many 2R prints.

 

[moto-uno]

Mr Burk , I find the two photos leave me with more questions than answers .They are dissimilar enough that I can't see
any real reference points . One point worth remembering , making a good print from 35mm is an act of God , where the
same from 6x9 or 4x5 is quite literally a breeze . It may sound harsh , but the numerous shades of grey in an 11x14 print
from the larger formats become noticeable in their absence with a 35mm neg . Peter

 

[Bill Burk]

Mr Burk , I find the two photos leave me with more questions than answers .They are dissimilar enough that I can't see
any real reference points . One point worth remembering , making a good print from 35mm is an act of God , where the
same from 6x9 or 4x5 is quite literally a breeze . It may sound harsh , but the numerous shades of grey in an 11x14 print
from the larger formats become noticeable in their absence with a 35mm neg . Peter

I agree. I made the comparison mostly to answer my own curiosity because the two prints satisfied me so thoroughly that I wanted to see what it was. Every time I look at them I think up a different explanation. And I always conclude it isn't resolution that makes the 4x5 better.