I just don't get the 35mm vs bigger format thing.

Nodda Duma said:

Hey I thought it was a great opportunity for a jab at management types

Click to expand...

Of anybody I was hoping you could prove me wrong...

Bill

p.s. I work for Kodak but not in management. The opinions and positions I take are my own and not necessarily those of EKC.

There is an old saying that goes: When one sees hoof prints, think horses before zebras.

I learned early on that my initial tests of any assertion should always be practical ones, not theoretical ones. Apply a qualitative sieve before a quantitative one. In other words, an assertion must first pass real-world common sense thresholds, before it even needs to be subjected to a calculator. Look for horses first, and you just might save yourself from chasing after phantom zebras.

So along those qualitative and practical lines of thought, it seems to me that if the Minox/8x10 assertion were to be true, then the aggregate empirical observations of emulsion photographers over the last 188 years would have to be false. Or at least over the years that enlargers have reigned.

Generation after generation after generation of photographers who thought they were easily seeing differences in their prints from larger negatives? And carefully chose their camera formats accordingly? They would all have been be dead wrong.

All of the fabulous detail and tonality advantages they thought they saw in a 2.5x enlargement from an 8-inch x 10-inch negative over the detail and tonality of a 63.5x enlargement from a 0.3150-inch by 0.3937-inch negative? Multi-generational mass hysteria.

This really is not a trivial barrier. I'm not so sure that almost two hundred years of hard-won collective knowledge and wisdom can so easily be ignored or dismissed. I'm not so sure that the assertion even comes close to passing the horse prints threshold, let alone the zebra threshold.

Now this could all be wrong. That's the attitude one must always take. Physical laws are just that—laws. Perhaps the calculator alone can prove the assertion. But any set of calculations, no matter how carefully premised and crafted, must also be able to successfully model the real-world observations made over those last two centuries.

Ken

Ken and Bill, you're not wrong. The problem with this thread is that everyone is talking about different things yet discussing as if they are all the same.

This is going to be lengthy but let's step back and talk about the print making process as a whole system made up of individual, separable components. Ie, we're going to walk through a systems analysis. The system is made up of a lens, camera and photographer, the negative including development, the final print including development, and finally the viewer or instrument examining the final print. Each of these components introduces its own degradation in the transfer of information between original object and the final image.

As a linear system, the transfer of information can be and has been characterized to great detail in many different ways over the centuries. The exact method isn't necessarily important for this discussion, but the key point is that the effect of each of these components can be divided out and analyzed separately to determine what their effect is on the image.

This fact also allows us to assume some level of equivalency in various components to discover the source of differences in quality between the prints generated from different-sized systems (ie camera formats).

So we assume the camera and photographer provide equivalent contribution (mirror slap, shaky hands, etc..essentially vibration and miss-timing of exposure), so when finding the fundamental difference this contribution can be ignored.

That leaves the lens, negative, print and viewer.

The fundamental question assumes the prints are the same size (makes sense), and an unspoken assumption that the viewer also is the same (also makes sense). This leaves us looking at the two true variables:the lens and the film.

There is a difference in how the lens images between the small and large formats. During the discussion I added the point that aberrations scale with a lens. A 50 f/2 and 250 f/2 are scaled equivalents from a design standpoint, in that their aberrations, ray trace, image format and layout all look the same ...but just different linear dimensions proportional to the ratio of their focal lengths. They both provide the exact same image information formed onto their respective image circles. As such, the smallest resolvable spots for the longer lens are larger by the ratio of the focal lengths. This has an impact on the MTF. That I showed with the plots I posted, although some would still argue the sky is green. So by virtue of this scaling, the smaller lens is capable of transferring much higher spatial frequencies (fancy way of saying better resolution). but we'll see for this comparison the ability is negated because we want to look at images of the same size:

Ignoring for the moment the effect of the film and print components of the imaging system, if you were to take the image formed by the lenses and make them the same size, they would look the same. Those 200 lp/mm (for example) that the smaller lens recorded has just been resized to the same 40 lp/mm of our larger lens. There's a caveat to that thought exercise: assume the lenses are not near diffraction limit. Diffraction is a function of wavelength and f/#. For the values above (f/2) we're probably nowhere near diffraction limit. However, if we stop the lenses down, then at some point the formed, resized image (remember we're ignoring the film and print effect for now) will look different and the nod goes to the larger lens.

But let's keep the lenses at an equivalent, wide open aperture setting so we can look at the effect of the film by itself. This one's pretty much a no-brainer I think. The image recorded by the smaller format negative, when enlarged to the same size as the larger format negative, will show a different image due to the recording ability of the film grain itself. Again, the advantage will go to the larger format.


Let's release the theoretical limits and discuss real systems: for larger formats a design is never simply scaled up. Weight and size considerations means larger lenses are typically different (though similar) designs at slower f/#'s. This is where maintaining the same DOF comes into play, but muddies the waters when trying to examine what each system variable contributes. These changes all improve the capability of the LF lenses to produce a print which, when compared to the enlargement from the smaller negative provides a sharper print.

However, giving credit where credit is due, the optimal f/# setting on a good 35mm lens with very fine grain film does have the capability to provide a print as sharp as one generated from a large format camera. One other very practical point to consider, when the very real constraints of size and weight are incorporated into the design, I've found that smaller format lens are much more capable of higher performance at a given stop than a larger format lens (this isn't limited to cameras using film as the media). Weight and size requirements always trade off against performance. In other words, I can do a heck of a lot more with a pound of glass at 35mm than a pound of glass at 8x10.

So nobody's wrong, we're just talking different aspects of the system as a whole, or worse, changing more than one thing about the system at a time without first establishing what each component contributes. In fact, it seems we're all in violent agreement, coming to similar conclusions based from our own individual experience. Ie beating a dead horse.

I'm wary of any scientific claims that attempt to redress human experience. I've seen superb prints from sub miniature formats and I admire their creators without ever wishing to emulate them. A typical 16mm monochrome negative produces a grainy, high contrast image with muddy shadow details. A tree in autumn mist, would be an ideal sub-min subject for anyone with scrupulous exposure, development and printing habits, but a medium format print it will never be, never mind a large format photograph.

I think we're in danger of letting optics override the medium as a whole, which is a more complex topic. If a 16mm negative did indeed produce the same amount of detail as a much larger one, we should be able to enlarge the image and isolate a small part (let's say a 1mm area or 1/16th for the sake of argument), a figure perhaps, and see the nuance of his expression. That is not the case.

If we limit the size of the printed image, then it is indeed more difficult to say which format it was printed on. I used to make small work prints on grade 0 Agfa Brovira and Portriga from an Olympus OM1. One day I cropped slightly to 5 x 4 ratio and showed it to the highly experienced head of a photo lab. He said he hadn't realised I'd gone to large format. He was highly suspicious when I told him it was a 35mm negative from a 50mm 1.8 lens, and not a large format contact print. The eye needs something to latch on to. That thing can be luminance, edge definition, grain, tonality, all are aesthetic clues to the technical underpinnings. In smaller formats it's often grain, which is why a 400 ASA or faster negative can often produce an apparently sharper 10 x 8 than a 100 ASA negative. A look in our parents or grandparent's photo album will often produce roll film contacts of 6 x 6 or 6 x 9cm. They may not be sharp but they have different aesthetic qualities from a 1970s 110 negative. If the claims were true, those qualities would not exist.

"Everything you thought was wrong" narratives tend to miss out some important factors, and photography is no different.

Edit: Post overlapped with Nodda Duma, who appears to be saying a similar thing, better ; )

I think this short article sums it up pretty well: https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-sharpness/

The bigger negative wins in the final print.

Regards,
Rob "Are you sure there isn't a level zero?" Bultman

It should be noted that in the real world the resolution claims of films and lenses are based on contrast ratios of around 1000:1 and those contrast ratios don't exist in the subject. This means that the theoretical and lab testatble claims of performance are never reached out in the field except in rare circumstances. So even if your film is capable of 220 lp/mm and your lens is capable of over 200 lp/mm, you will never see it in the negative.

I would imagine that any advantage in resolution that lenses for smaller formats enjoy, is obliterated by the higher degree of enlargement required to make the same sized print as one from a larger format, (especially between 135 and 120 formats.)

This jives with my first hand experience.

200 lp/mm on film and then printed optically without noticeable degradation is joyride with 135 format, a challenge with MF and absurd in LF.

RobC said:

It should be noted that in the real world the resolution claims of films and lenses are based on contrast ratios of around 1000:1 and those contrast ratios don't exist in the subject. This means that the theoretical and lab testatble claims of performance are never reached out in the field except in rare circumstances. So even if your film is capable of 220 lp/mm and your lens is capable of over 200 lp/mm, you will never see it in the negative.

Click to expand...

I would add that if you look at a fuji film datasheet (any one of them) they quote the lighting contrast ratios.
So for example with fuji acros you get:
1.6 : 1 gives 60 lp/mm
1000:1 gives 200 lp/mm

with a resolution contrast test that means the contrast between each white line and its neighbouring dark line.

typically in your subject I would suggest the fine detail you are looking at is far more likely to be exhibiting 1.6:1 contrast and not 1000:1 which means if you obtain 60lp/mm throughout your whole subject you would be doing doing pretty well. All depends on your subject matter and its lighting. (which is why side lighting is so much better, it increases micro contrast and therefore obtainable resolution too).

So the long and the short of it is that pretty much all lenses and films are easily capable of achieving this and the limiting factor of film resolution and hence magnification in the print has little to do with your lens or camera but far more to do with the lighting micro contrast in your subject.

I would add that because the lighting level varies across your subject you will also get different levels of resolution throughout your subject. So all the talk about resolution is largely pie in the sky. I'm guilty as charged your honour.

Nodda Duma said:

The image recorded by the smaller format negative, when enlarged to the same size as the larger format negative, will show a different image due to the recording ability of the film grain itself. Again, the advantage will go to the larger format.

Click to expand...

So would you say then, that if we had a film with grain small enough to be completely invisible, that in general, a print from 35mm would be better than a print from a larger format, due to lens characteristics, but since grain is large enough to be visible, that the larger formats have visibly better detail, better tonality, and finer appearing grain than 35mm, due to the larger image-grain size ratio?

Ken, it's a matter of perspective. RE horseprints vs. zebra prints: If one lives in African bush then the opposite of your premise is true (think zebras rather than horses). However, I live in Texas so I'll continue to think horses. If I could shoot ULF and print mural size then I definitely would.

I get a kick out of all these diatribes where someone with a calculator thinks they can squeeze large-format quality out of small cameras. You can't. Period. Maybe someone who is really lousy with large equipment in the field or darkroom can successfully degrade that kind of performance into something lesser; but it never works the other way around. But Bambi in the ring with Godzilla, and Godzilla wins every
time. Size matters. But what is best for personal use or a given application involves many many aesthetic and practical variables beyond mere degree of apples to apples enlargement. I routinely shoot 35mm, 6x7, 6x9, 4x5, and 8x10. Each format has its pros and cons; and each has its own kind of fun factor. The big stuff is obviously more expensive to shoot; but one tends to shoot more selectively. My darkroom is superbly equipped to handle all these formats, even for very very precise work. None is "better" than another. But a piece of
film the size of a postage stamp is never ever ever ever going to give you a big enlargement with the detail and richness of a piece of film
the size of a sheet of typing paper, no matter how much someone crunches the MTF numbers of what they spent on the lens. Any decent
garden variety lens on MF will blow away anything 35mm, and anything large format will blow away anything MF, unless someone is an
utter klutz with that kind of equipment. And some people are. You Big Bang Theory types should throw away your equations and start looking at real prints. The proof is in the pudding.

I think you summarized it pretty well, Drew.

DREW WILEY said:

I get a kick out of all these diatribes where someone with a calculator thinks they can squeeze large-format quality out of small cameras. You can't. Period. Maybe someone who is really lousy with large equipment in the field or darkroom can successfully degrade that kind of performance into something lesser; but it never works the other way around. But Bambi in the ring with Godzilla, and Godzilla wins every
time. Size matters. But what is best for personal use or a given application involves many many aesthetic and practical variables beyond mere degree of apples to apples enlargement. I routinely shoot 35mm, 6x7, 6x9, 4x5, and 8x10. Each format has its pros and cons; and each has its own kind of fun factor. The big stuff is obviously more expensive to shoot; but one tends to shoot more selectively. My darkroom is superbly equipped to handle all these formats, even for very very precise work. None is "better" than another. But a piece of
film the size of a postage stamp is never ever ever ever going to give you a big enlargement with the detail and richness of a piece of film
the size of a sheet of typing paper, no matter how much someone crunches the MTF numbers of what they spent on the lens. Any decent
garden variety lens on MF will blow away anything 35mm, and anything large format will blow away anything MF, unless someone is an
utter klutz with that kind of equipment. And some people are. You Big Bang Theory types should throw away your equations and start looking at real prints. The proof is in the pudding.

Click to expand...

I agree, but you are talking technical detail and not aesthetics?

Drew you realize you are in violent agreement with the same equation pushers you denigrate?



RPC: Comparable, not better.

cliveh said:

I agree, but you are talking technical detail and not aesthetics?

Click to expand...

Of course.

since when is a 8x10 enlargement of a 35mm negative extreme enlargement ???
i think it is kind of funny the stuff people who use LF say.

i agree, no format is better than the other they all have their strengths and weaknesses,
but to claim that a 8x10 enlargement is extreme from a 35mm negative
is kind of funny. thanks drew, made my day.

and claiming that someone who is able to make fine grained negatives from 35mm film ( like tmx or my pr pan x )
that can look tight, and crisp and people might think is a 4x5 negative only works when
their 4x5 work has been degraded so much that it looks like a bad 35mm negative is kind of
funny too ... where to you come up with this stuff, you should be writing a book. they are classic !

almost as classic as apug has endless posters that claim digital and analog are EXACTLY the same ..

DREW WILEY said:

I get a kick out of all these diatribes where someone with a calculator thinks they can squeeze large-format quality out of small cameras.

Click to expand...

I'll make a print from a Minox negative to illustrate the discussion. The type of work I do is not normally from the Pictorialism school, so I think it will make a good example. I consider prints that lack detail as flawed, so I'll be honest in my assessment. I use Galerie so my prints should compare to yours.

There are times to shoot Large Format. When shooting Godzilla for instance. Chances are the kaiju is going to be far away and moving fast. With a Large Format camera you can aim in the general vicinity and shoot. After developing you can crop and enlarge the heck out of it and still get a decent print. You would have to use the full frame of a Minox negative to get acceptable detail in a large print, and in this case the Minox would not have the detail (unless you were able to sneak up and use the chain to get a closeup of his face).

Bill Burk said:

I'll make a print from a Minox negative to illustrate the discussion. The type of work I do is not normally from the Pictorialism school, so I think it will make a good example. I consider prints that lack detail as flawed, so I'll be honest in my assessment. I use Galerie so my prints should compare to yours.

There are times to shoot Large Format. When shooting Godzilla for instance. Chances are the kaiju is going to be far away and moving fast. With a Large Format camera you can aim in the general vicinity and shoot. After developing you can crop and enlarge the heck out of it and still get a decent print. You would have to use the full frame of a Minox negative to get acceptable detail in a large print, and in this case the Minox would not have the detail (unless you were able to sneak up and use the chain to get a closeup of his face).

Click to expand...

but bill, was there someone behind the red curtain ?
and if there was was he ( or she ) using an 8x10 camera ??

Bill Burk said:

I'll make a print from a Minox negative to illustrate the discussion. The type of work I do is not normally from the Pictorialism school, so I think it will make a good example. I consider prints that lack detail as flawed, so I'll be honest in my assessment. I use Galerie so my prints should compare to yours.

Click to expand...

Well, for what it's worth I consider Bill to be one of the more creditable sources on this site. As well as a heck of a nice guy. So I look forward to seeing what he can come up with.

It's imperative to always approach problems with an open mind. Especially those where one is most certain one already knows the answers, because that's where the greatest danger of prejudice lies.

We live in a determinative universe. Nothing is inherently unexplainable. Maybe still unknown at times, but never not knowable. Usually when a system appears to be wrong it's not because the known variables are known incorrectly. It's because there are unknown variables that have yet to be correctly identified and factored into the result.

Perhaps this is a teaching moment and I can learn something...



Ken

You're right.......it's a myth.......stick to 35 & leave LF to the rest of us. L

Luis-F-S said:

You're right.......it's a myth.......stick to 35 & leave LF to the rest of us. L

Click to expand...

what exactly is the myth ???
is it that someone who is careful, knows what he is doing
and uses fine grained film, a developer that delivers fine grain,
and enlarging lens that does what it is supposed to do, is able to
print a bigger than 8x10 image on 11x14 paper and it will look
like a 4x5 negative, made with the same care, with the same film
the same developer and equally good enlarger lens and technique
printed to the same aspect ratio ?

Ok, i want to get in line to participate again in this massive dead-horse-beating...

My view of the subject is: Real Photographers (R.P.) use Large Format cameras with tilt and shift and swings. You get maximum quality, all sorts of camera movements, and you have real "what you see is what you get" at the ground glass. Plus you really get forced into thinking it twice before triggering the shutter.

If you can't use a Large Format camera for some reason (example: need more speed of operation, easy handheld use), a 6x7 Medium Format camera will, with perfect technique and very good film, approach large format (4x5) quality. For a Real Photographer (R.P), a camera like the Pentax 6x7 or the Mamiya RB67 will be described as "very compact and easy to use".

If you can't use a Medium Format camera for some reason (example: need more DOF, more speed of operation, etc), then a 35mm camera will, with perfect technique and very good film, approach 6x6 or 6x4.5 format quality.

Quiche Eaters use DSLRs and chimp all the time.

jnanian said:

what exactly is the myth ???
is it that someone who is careful, knows what he is doing
and uses fine grained film, a developer that delivers fine grain,
and enlarging lens that does what it is supposed to do, is able to
print a bigger than 8x10 image on 11x14 paper and it will look
like a 4x5 negative, made with the same care, with the same film
the same developer and equally good enlarger lens and technique
printed to the same aspect ratio ?

Click to expand...

With the same film? No. Myth.

BUT if the 4x5 negative is Tri-X or HP5, and the 35mm negative is Gigabitfilm (or whatever is Agfa Copex microfilm called these days), or the exceptional Adox CMS 20, carefully developed so it is usable for pictorial purposes... then yes, there is a chance. There is a nice guy here on this forum who likes to do that.

I'll be back when I finish making myself more popcorn.

DREW WILEY said:

I get a kick out of all these diatribes where someone with a calculator thinks they can squeeze large-format quality out of small cameras. You can't. Period. Maybe someone who is really lousy with large equipment in the field or darkroom can successfully degrade that kind of performance into something lesser; but it never works the other way around. But Bambi in the ring with Godzilla, and Godzilla wins every time. Size matters. But what is best for personal use or a given application involves many many aesthetic and practical variables beyond mere degree of apples to apples enlargement. I routinely shoot 35mm, 6x7, 6x9, 4x5, and 8x10. Each format has its pros and cons; and each has its own kind of fun factor. The big stuff is obviously more expensive to shoot; but one tends to shoot more selectively. My darkroom is superbly equipped to handle all these formats, even for very very precise work. None is "better" than another. But a piece of film the size of a postage stamp is never ever ever ever going to give you a big enlargement with the detail and richness of a piece of film the size of a sheet of typing paper, no matter how much someone crunches the MTF numbers of what they spent on the lens. Any decent garden variety lens on MF will blow away anything 35mm, and anything large format will blow away anything MF, unless someone is an utter klutz with that kind of equipment. And some people are. You Big Bang Theory types should throw away your equations and start looking at real prints. The proof is in the pudding.

Click to expand...

+1